Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified. Read the Third time, and passed.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders fir consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday 16 July.

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

Considered; to be read the Third time

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
(By Order)

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 July.

WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (VATERSAY
CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway).

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Self-employment

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much self-employment has grown in the United Kingdom since 1979.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much self-employment has grown in the United Kingdom since 1979.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The latest published figures show that self-employment in the United Kingdom has increased by over three-quarters of a million since 1979.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and on the very encouraging answer that he has just given. Does he agree that self-employment and small businesses can provide a powerful force for reviving commercial and business efforts within the depressed inner cities as well as elsewhere? Will he please assure me that he and his Department will do what they can to remove the petty bureaucracy which still stands in the way of many who would like to start up on their own?

Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is absolutely correct in saying that there could be no greater benefit to the inner cities than a continuing growth in self-employment. He is also correct in saying that the Government will do all in their power to remove obstacles to that growth.

Mrs. Bottomley: Such a dramatic increase in self-emloyment figures must be a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies in promoting enterprise. What information does my hon. Friend have on how those figures are spread throughout the country? Is it not important to encourage self-emloyment in those areas hardest hit by the loss of traditional industries?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The growth has been quite dramatic. It is up 40 per cent. since 1979. The growth in the region is much the same as in the south-east and the south-west. The growth in the regions is particularly encouraging, because, for every self-employed person, in due course more jobs will be created as they in turn take on employees. That is why we are encouraging, wherever we can, the growth of self-employment in the areas that have been hardest hit by the decline in the traditional industries.

Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that it is true that there has been a remarkable growth in self-employment, but that if we look at the historical record since 1945, we see that in every period when unemployment grew. self-employment grew? I invite him to check that. If he looks at the figures for tax and VAT, he will see that the self-employed are overwhelmingly very low-paid. It is not a real measure of a successful enterprise economy. A lot of it is the desperation of people struggling along because it is their only alternative to unemployment.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is right in one respect. Under the Labour Government unemployment doubled and self-employment fell. However, she is incorrect in suggesting that a similar pattern has occurred under this Government. Self-employment has increased by 40 per cent., which is five times the increase in self-employment that has occurred over the past 30 years.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I join my colleagues in wishing my hon. Friend every success in his new position. May I draw his attention to the fact that, although self-employment has grown fast in this country, it is still only one third of that in countries such as Italy? My hon. Friend will be aware that Italy's new economy has had many compliments paid to it in recent years. Is there a link between Italy's healthy economy and the mileage that still exists for self-employment in this country?

Mr. Lilley: I have no doubt that the self-employed in Italy contribute to that country's economic growth. However, this country's economy grew more rapidly over the period of the last Parliament than that of Italy, and we shall continue to encourage the growth of self-employment wherever it is appropriate in the United Kingdom.

Industrial Production

Mr. Ian Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of industrial production.

Mr. Lilley: In the three months to April industrial production was 2½ per cent. higher than a year earlier, and within that manufacturing output was up 4½ per cent.

Mr. Taylor: I welcome those figures, which must be very good news for many regions of the country. Does my hon. Friend consider that the growth of output can continue so that, by the end of next year, we will have the highest rate of sustained economic growth in this country since the war?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. On official forecasts, we will have had seven years of sustained growth at one of the highest rates that we have seen since the war. Of course, on unofficial forecasts, the projected rate of growth is constantly being forecast to increase. We see no reason domestically for growth not to continue in this country.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have succeeded in reaching the same figure for industrial production as existed in 1979?

Mr. Lilley: Yes. We are well above it.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1980 the growth of gross domestic product of United Kingdom Limited has been more rapid than that of any other European country? Is that not a welcome and refreshing change compared with the 1060s and 1970s? In those circumstances, was it not predictable that the shareholders would vote in the same board of directors?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting that since the election the board of directors has received praise from some surprising quarters. The growth of the economy is not only good for the continuing prosperity of the country, but it has restored the pride of the British people.

Mr. Blair: I welcome the Economic Secretary to his position and congratulate him on having achieved it. Is it not the case that any increase in industrial production has come about largely as a result of the exchange rate depreciation and the fact that those competitive gains are now being eroded? The hon. Gentleman boasts about the Government's economic record, but will he tell us when they will get back, under this Chancellor, to the position on the balance of payments in manufactured trade that they inherited in 1979?

Mr. Lilley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and, in turn, congratulate him on the success that he achieved in the elections. Clearly, the Labour party has considerable sense in some matters.
The growth of industrial production is not just the result of changes in the exchange rates. We have had six or seven years of continuous growth that cannot possibly be attributed to the recent change in the exchange rates.

Personal Incomes

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of his gross wage a single person receiving half average industrial earnings pays out in income tax and national insurance contributions.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): A single person on half average male manual earnings will this year pay just under 21 per cent. of his earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions. The corresponding figure for someone on half average earnings for all occupations is just under 25 per cent.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that that proportion has been reduced significantly, in particular as a result of the past three Budgets, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that people earning quite modest wages and salaries are still paying far too great a proportion of those wages and salaries in direct taxation of one sort or another? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's top priority to reduce those direct tax levels still further during the course of this Parliament?

Mr. Major: We are certainly keen to reduce taxation whenever and wherever it is prudent to do so. As my hon. Friend intimated, since 1979 there have been substantial improvements, not only in the basic rate, but in the thresholds, and, perhaps most important of all, the fact is that nearly 1½ million taxpayers have been entirely taken out of tax.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister confirm that the figure in the latter part of his first answer — that for all workers on half average earnings the share of their wages taken in tax and national insurance is just under 25 per cent.—is higher than the figure of 23·5 per cent. in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government? Every worker, married or single, on less than average earnings loses a bigger slice of his wages in tax and national insurance under this Government than he did in the last year of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is half right, in that he correctly interpreted what I said a moment ago. As regards a comparison with 1978–79, the more accurate comparison would be the updated index figure under the system that applied before. On that basis the reduction still applies.

Mr, John Townend: The figures given suggest the reason why the population voted to return a Government who are dedicated to reducing rather than increasing taxation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our starting basic rate for income tax, plus insurance, is still relatively high compared with our industrial competitors?

Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor quite clearly indicated his opinion on that in the last Budget, when he reduced the standard rate.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Martyn Jones: asked the Chancellor of Exchequer whether he has any plans to increase value added tax base in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Parry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to impose value added tax on children's clothes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any plans to extend the range of value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister explain what the Government intend to do in the light of the probable result of the Cockfield report to the European Commission next week, which will certainly insist on the harmonisation of VAT rates within the European Economic Community? That, of course, will mean VAT on food, clothing, fuel and other goods in this country.

Mr. Brooke: Last night the Commission decided not to take a decision on the proposals put forward by Lord Cockfield's commission. Therefore, as yet, the hon. Gentleman's question remains hypothetical.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will veto any attempt to introduce VAT on children's shoes and clothes?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the situation on food and children's clothes entirely clear.

Mr. Heathcote-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree, and will he confirm, that, whatever the merits or objections to extending the VAT base, it should remain a decision of this Parliament and not be subcontracted to the European Parliament? Moreover, we should not be pressured into it by the European Court.

Mr. Brooke: I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend has no such plans, but it is the need to preserve his freedom to have plans in this area that might cause us to exercise our veto in Brussels.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Lord Cockfield's proposals also include the harmonisation of excise duties? Can the Minister assure us that the Chancellor will oppose any efforts to harmonise excise duties?

Mr. Brooke: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as the one that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). Lord Cockfield has not brought forward his proposals. Therefore, that question remains hypothetical.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure at the fact that the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on the Opposition Front Bench demonstrate that debility is not necessarily a bar to advancement in the Labour party? In view of the disgraceful scare-mongering that was carried out during the election campaign on the issue of VAT, has my hon. Friend yet received an apology from those hon. Gentleman for the lies that were told—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) knows what I am about to say.

Mr. Hamilton: I refer to the lies that were told by members of the Labour party who were not standing as candidates for membership of this House.

Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in admiring the two hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. As to secret agendas during the election, we were conscious of

two pieces of small print that were missing from the Labour party manifesto. To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, "To omit one piece of small print might be regarded as a cock-up; to omit two looks like a conspiracy."

Mr. Gould: The Minister must know that the Prime Minister has merely said that she does not believe that plans to levy VAT on children's clothing and other items of the family budget would get through the House. I agree with her on that point, but what, however, is the Government's attitude? Will the Minister tell us whether he, his colleagues and the Prime Minister will ensure that a veto is applied to any such proposals?

Mr. Brooke: I have the distinction of having been the pairing Whip during the 1979 Parliament who uniquely lost a vote in the House, but it is not the Government's practice to put in front of the House proposals that they would not expect to carry.

Industrial Production

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lilley: In the three months to April 1987 manufacturing output per head is estimated to have been over 6½ per cent. higher than a year earlier.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome reply. Is it true that the growth in manufacturing output per head in this country is now greater than in any other major industrial country, including Japan? Is it not also true that, under the last Labour Government, we were nearly bottom of that league? Therefore, is it any wonder that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) should now have taken to praising the Government on their economic record?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The rate of growth of manufacturing productivity in this country has exceeded that in every major industrial country, not excluding Japan, since 1979.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister agree that investment by overseas multinationals in manufacturing in the United Kingdom is now declining and that the 30 top overseas companies show a massive reduction in employment?

Mr. Lilley: Investment overall in this country is at an all-time record. If a Labour Government had been returned, there would have been negative investment from abroad in this country.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 4 per cent. growth in manufacturing output per head since 1979 not only contrasts favourably with the preceding six years from 1973 to 1979 but bodes extremely well for the creation of new jobs in this country, because it shows that Britain is becoming competitive again, compared with countries overseas?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. That growth bodes well for the future. Manufacturing industry is now increasing productivity. It is doing so because we have restored to management the power to manage and to trade union members the power to control their unions. As a result we have better industrial relations and greater incentives to increase production.

EC Budget

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of Britain's contribution to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Brooke: The latest projection of our net payments to Community institutions in 1987–88 is £870 million.

Mr. McKelvey: We are still a large net contributor. Is it not the case that in Fontainebleau in 1984 there was an agreement that, if there were an increased resources payment, there would be proper budgetary control? Has the Prime Minister herself not agreed that there has been a budgetary control failure? If so, why are we agreeing to a further 3·5 billion deficit in this respect? Will we have proper guarantees that there will be proper budgetary control in future?

Mr. Brooke: I am not entirely sure about the 3½ billion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but the great achievement of the Fontainebleau agreement was to secure a permanent abatement for the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that was beyond the power of the Labour party to achieve during its time in government.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the British taxpayer has any more largesse to dispense charity begins at home, and that that money would be far better spent on our own inner cities than on Ireland, Greece and the Mediterranean coast?

Mr. Brooke: I share with my hon. Friend a desire to restrain expenditure in the European Community.

Mr. Spearing: Whatever our net or gross contributions, is it not a fact that a good slice of those contributions is taken up by VAT? Whatever the Chancellor said, and whatever plans Lord Cockfield may or may not have, is it not a fact that the European Commission is now taking the British Government to court so that VAT rates on all building, fuels, some new services and water should be put up? Should not that fact be in the Government's calculations?

Mr. Brooke: It is certainly a fact that the Commission has taken the British Government to the European Court under infraction proceedings on zero rates on a number of different items. That is a legal case, which will be heard on 15 September. We will not know the judgment until the end of this year or the beginning of next, and the Government will then react to whatever the judgment is.

Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a mistake to pay twice for the same thing? As the House was persuaded to go along with an increase in own resources for the Community on the ground that there was to be budgetry discipline, we should not give a further increase just to get that guaranteed.

Mr. Brooke: I repeat and endorse what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that it is very much the concern of the Government to restrain expenditure in the Community.

Mr. Hoyle: As we are net contributors, what is our trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC? Can the Minister confirm that our deficit with West Germany is the largest trade deficit that we have? What will be done about this albatross around our neck?

Mr. Brooke: These are supplementary questions to question 6 to the Treasury, not "Mastermind". The hon. Gentleman's supplementary does not fall within the terms of the original question.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Simon Coombs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies and how many employees have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector since 1979.

Mr. Major: Fifteen major businesses have been privatised, employing 650,000 people.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the proportion of public industry that has been returned to the private sector since 1979 and what other elements of the public sector remain to be returned in the immediate and medium term future, and will he take this opportunity of telling the House about some of the many advantages that privatisation bestows?

Mr. Major: Were I to respond in detail to all those points, I fancy that we would run on for rather a long time. Over one third of state industry has been privatised since 1979. As the House knows, we have a continuing rolling programme for the future. Many benefits are increasingly apparent, not least the access to capital markets and greater incentives for management and employees to produce a profitable return, as they are doing.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm that the workers in most of the companies that have been transferred now have lower wages, job insecurity, lower pensions, lower sickness benefit and fewer holidays? What excuse has he to offer for this shabby transformation?

Mr. Major: I cannot confirm any of those propositions. The companies that have been transferred to the private sector were often unprofitable before, but they are now substantially profitable.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of 11 June shows that the public like the idea of transferring properties from the public sector to genuine public ownership? When will he start this process on the Bank of England?

Mr. Major: I have no comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. On the former, I entirely agree. The concern for privatisation that we have shown has been followed in a number of other countries. It is noticeable that on 11 June privatisation was preferred to social ownership.

Mr. Blair: If the British Airports Authority is to be sold partly by fixed tender to get value for money for the taxpayer, why was the same procedure not followed on the sale of British Gas, British Telecom and British Airways, when thousands, if not millions, of pounds were lost to the taxpayers through selling those companies off at a knock-down price?

Mr. Major: I do not accept that any of those companies was sold at knock-down prices. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on BAA at the moment.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend recollect the dire predictions of doom and gloom when companies such as Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace and Jaguar were


privatised? How do those predictions square with the current performance of those companies in the private sector?

Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend intimates, those predictions do not square. For example, Jaguar's pre-tax profits are up 33 per cent. on 1984, and Cable and Wireless pre-tax profits are up fourfold since that date. Therefore, the predictions that were made at the time were wildly inaccurate.

Income Tax

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to seek to reduce the present rate of standard income tax; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I aim to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 25p in the pound as soon as I prudently can.

Mr. Cox: While I note that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's commitment, about which we now hear repeatedly, to regenerate and rebuild confidence in our inner cities is real? He must be aware that it will take substantial sums of money to do that, and it is certainly the wish of the general public that that money should go into our inner cities and the social fabric of our country rather than on tax concessions to the wealthy. Will he tell the House exactly what is his commitment to the inner cities and social fabric of the country?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman's question betrayed two failings on the part of the Labour party to understand the facts of life which, I believe, cost it dear at the last general election. The first is that he referred to the basic rate of income tax as a tax on the rich. He totally fails to understand that that is a marginal rate of tax on millions and millions of ordinary working people, many of whom are earning incomes well below the average. Getting the basic rate of income tax down for them is something of the first importance—it is not simply a tax cut for the rich.
The second thing the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that the achievement of all the things that we seek to achieve in the public sector must be secured by growth in the economy. Lowering the rate of income tax and creating a more dynamic economy and greater incentives in the economy is the crucial part of the way to get a stronger economy that will enable us to do more for the inner cities, among other things.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuation of the reduction in the standard rate from 33p to 27p to 25p is welcome to all taxpayers, whether rich or poor? Indeed, it affects people who are retired. Does he further agree that when we get down to 25p as a standard rate of tax, the next jump to 42p in the pound will be far too high, and that it should come down at the same time as the 25p is achieved?

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his consistent support for the policy that we have been pursuing of bringing down the rates of income tax and raising thresholds. We shall continue to do that as and when circumstances permit. I shall certainly consider the question of the jump from the basic rate to the first higher rate, but it is interesting to note that, in the United States, the new tax reform package, which has gained a number

of plaudits in this country, has a basic rate of 15 per cent. and then rises to 28 per cent. That is a gap similar to the one about which my hon. Friend has spoken.

Mr. Pike: Does the Chancellor accept that the tax cut in the basic rate has really been a con job on the majority of ordinary people? Is it not a fact that the tax cuts have not benefited the very low-paid and people living on state benefits, and that the majority of people on average earnings are paying more in VAT and national insurance and are worse off in taxation terms than they were before the cut in basic tax?

Mr. Lawson: On the contrary, the very low-paid have done particularly well under this Government as a result of the introduction—for the first time in this country—of reduced rates of national insurance contributions for employees and for those who employ them. That has helped those at the lower end of the wage spectrum, especially.
As for con jobs, the only con job that I can recall was when the Labour party sought unsuccessfully to conceal the fact that it planned to abolish the married man's tax allowance.

Mr. Boswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the healthy worldwide trend towards lower and less penal tax rates? Does he agree that that has considerable relevance to the level at which we set our own basic and additional rates?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. That international context is both very striking and something that we do have to take into account. It is something that I have to take into accont in deciding what is appropriate and necessary for this country. Indeed, the consensus about the need to bring down income tax is one that is now shared by all those in charge of the major economies of the world. It is only the Labour party in this country that is determined to put up income tax—at least it was at the last election. I do not know whether it still is. This revisionism that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is going in for is bewildering us. But it was only the Labour party—atleast until very recently—that was determined to put up income tax.

Interest Rates

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

Mr. Lilley: Bank base rates are 9 per cent.

Mr. Macdonald: If the economy is as successful as the Chancellor frequently claims, why do we have one of the highest bank interest rates in the Western world? Does the Minister have any idea of the damage that that is doing to small businesses in my constituency, and when can my constituents expect some relief?

Mr. Lilley: It is not correct to say that British interest rates are the highest. Interest rates are kept at a level sufficient to keep downward pressure on inflation. I wonder whether, during the election campaign, the hon. Gentleman paused to think of the consequence for British interest rates if his party had been elected and had spent an extra £35 billion, largely financed by borrowing?

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what is preventing a reduction in interest rates, given that the economy is doing well, sterling is not under pressure and the credit expansion is being controlled?

Mr. Lilley: As I mentioned, it is our policy to keep interest rates at a level sufficient to keep money GDP on a steady downward path and, therefore, to maintain downward pressure on inflation. We shall continue to do that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why are the interest rates of Belgium, Canada,—[Hon. Members "Reading"]—France, West Germany, Holland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America all lower than the level of interest rates in this country? [Hon. Members: "Reading".] Why should British business men be penalised when overseas business men are not penalised?

Mr. Lilley: Real interest rates in Britain are about ½ per cent. above the average for other major industrial countries. I have not noticed British industry being penalised, since it is growing faster than industry in any other major Western economy.

Mr. Forth: In adding my best wishes to the others expressed to my hon. Friend about his new position, may I ask him whether he agrees that interest rates cannot be arbitrarily varied on their own as they are necessarily interlinked with and interdependent on the other great factors in any economy, such as inflation and exchange rates? Does he further agree that any responsible Government must bear that in mind when looking at interest rates, which cannot be considerd in isolation?

Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is quite correct. We have to take into account all those factors when determining the level of interest rates, but we give priority to keeping inflation on a downward course.

Mr. Gould: Does the Minister share the Bank of England's continuing concern, indicated again today, about the explosion of credit in the personal sector? Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) that manufacturing industry is now severely constrained by the high interest rates that the personal and property sectors are prepared to pay? Why is it that he and his colleagues are obsessed with public spending, when they should be doing something about this new and damaging version of crowding out?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who asks almost as many questions as he received votes. Interest rates are not inhibiting output. Output is growing more rapidly and the CBI survey shows that investment intentions are very strong. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the remarks of the Bank of England. They were directed towards the prudential aspects of borrowing. Of course it is correct that financial institutions should look closely at the ability of borrowers to repay their debts and the effect that that has on their balance sheets. We support that.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trend towards lower interest rates has been assisted by the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement occasioned by the Government's programme of privatisation?

Mr. Lilley: It is certainly true that as my hon. Friend said, if we were to eschew privatisation—even though that programme is primarily carried out for reasons of competition and efficiency—and the revenues that flow from it there would have to be higher borrowing and, therefore, higher interest rates.

European Monetary System

Mr. Alton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans for the United Kingdom to join the European monetary system.

Mr. Lawson: We continue to keep the matter under review.

Mr. Alton: Does the Chancellor agree that for far too long we have ducked membership of the European monetary system because of short-term arguments that have disappeared on the next prevailing wind of the world currency market—[Interruption.] Does the Chancellor agree that sterling is not a super currency and should not be subjected to the vagaries of the world money markets?

Mr. Lawson: I am not sure that I was able to hear every word that the hon. Member uttered, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give the fullest answer to his question. What he has failed to observe is that since the Louvre agreement towards the end of February of this year—which was conducted through G7, even though only six members were present on that occasion—we have enjoyed the benefits of exchange rate stability throughout all the major currencies, not just the European ones.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is it really a wise or constructive move to make binding commitments in regard to the exchange rate of the pound before we have completed the integration of the European market for capital? Would it not be much better to integrate our policies with those of the continental countries, particularly West Germany, after which the currencies will look after themselves?

Mr. Lawson: I agree with the first half of what my hon. Friend said. I strongly support the move that there is now throughout Europe for freedom of capital movements. A number of countries in the Community have complete freedom of capital movements and others are moving in that direction. The Commission is making further proposals this autumn for freedom of capital movements for those countries which, unlike the United Kingdom, do not already have it. This is an important development and I welcome it.

Mr. Skinner: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be lured by the call of the Liberals and Social Democrats into a further bout of merger mania and into agreeing that the pound should join the EMS. We have had enough twaddle about the Common Market in the past 14 years from Euro-fanatics at the back of me and the one below me who has just turned up for work. It has cost the British taxpayer £8,000 million net to be a member of this club, despite all the talk about barrow-loads of money being brought back by the Prime Minister. That has been the cost to the British taxpayer and it is time that it ended.

Mr. Lawson: I can assure the House that I am no more likely to be lured by the Liberals and Social Democrats than I am by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Value Added Tax

Mr. Fallon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new companies registered for value added tax in 1986.

Mr. Brooke: I regret that records are maintained in a form which enables only the net change in the number of VAT registered persons of different status to be given. In 1986 the net increase in the number of companies registered for VAT was over 7,000 and total VAT registrations increased by some 23,000.

Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some 6,000 new companies were registered during 1986 in the north-east alone? Is this not the best possible testimony to the success of Government policies in the region and the surest possible way of creating new jobs in the north-east?

Mr. Brooke: Because Customs VAT areas—what in Customs terms we call collections—do not match the boundaries of the economic regions, it is difficult to give regional figures, but the Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Washington collections showed positive VAT registrations last year.

Rebated Fuel

Mr. Nicholas: Baker asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received representations about the rules concerning the use of rebated fuel in farm vehicles.

Mr. Brooke: I have received about 10 letters over the last six months on these long-standing rules.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that long-thought-out and carefully delivered reply. Is he aware that the effect of these rules, certainly as administered by the Inland Revenue, is to say that tractors may not be used, for example, in fetes and on community occasions in villages to help carry floats at carnivals and other such community projects? Is that not a ridiculous restriction on the use of tractors?

Mr. Brooke: Customs and Excise, which in fact administers these rules rather than the Inland Revenue, is a very old-established organisation. It is true that anxiety in the Farming News during the past year suggested that Customs officers had been instructed to intensify checks on the use of farm tractors. In fact, that was not true. In terms of community and charity work in rural areas, the law is complex because of associated use of public roads. In practice, few difficulties have arisen, and grass-cutting, not on a public road, is allowed. As to charity work, this would require a change in the licensing law and that would come under the Department of Transport, but in practice few difficulties arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Maxton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the Arab League.

Mr. Maxton: As the Tory party made the introduction of a poll tax a major plank in its campaign in Scotland, and as it suffered such a crushing defeat in Scotland, what moral or democratic justification can the right hon. Lady have for continuing to impose this unfair, unjust and unworkable tax upon the people of Scotland? Will she now instruct her Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce legislation to repeal it?

The Prime Minister: No. The Act was passed during the last Parliament, and I take it that the hon. Gentleman is proud to be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Yeo: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Yeo: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to meet the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to obtain agreement between the two Front Benches that attacks made the under cloak of parliamentary privilege upon individuals who cannot answer for themselves are particularly despicable? An outstanding example of that nasty practice that is deserving of condemnation came in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

The Prime Minister: I hope that most hon. Members will agree that it is utterly contemptible to use the privileges and platform of the House to smear the reputation of those who lost their lives in the service of their country. I know that many of us in the House have the deepest sympathy for the families who are now suffering such grief and distress—the family of Captain Nairac a courageous officer of whom Britain can be proud—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: —and the widow and family of Airey Neave, whose death we honour in this House, who was a deeply honourable, brave and gallant Member and who was murdered by Irish terrorists within the precincts of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will repudiate the despicable comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—

Mr. Speaker: Before we have any more questions of that kind, may I say to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who well knows the rules—and to the whole House—that—[Interruption.] I did not get the drift of the hon. Member's question while he was asking it. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mr. Kinnock: Notwithstanding the blatant effort to usurp your position in the House by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this place cannot be used as an excuse or an opportunity to smear anyone about anything and must not be put to that purpose. However, it is fair to reflect to the right hon. Lady, that, as grave allegations—probably unfair allegations — have been made by people outside the House against a former Member of the House who died in tragic circumstances, and an officer of Her Majesty's forces, who was murdered, it may be reasonable to reflect upon the Government's decision not to respond to them. [Interruption.]

Mr. Adley: Klaus Barbie's defence lawyer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member withdraw that nasty remark. [Interruption.] Order. I repeat: will the hon. Member withdraw that nasty remark made from a sedentary position.

Mr. Adley: If you consider that my remark was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly withdraw it.

Mr. Kinnock: Mr. Speaker, the whole nature of Prime Minister's Questions is being changed by the efforts to use them in a particular way—by the view expressed in the question of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo)—[Interruption.]—by the answer that came from the Prime Minister, the use to which it was put, and the interjection of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker that, in view of that, it is necessary for us to treat this last passage as points of order and then revert to questions, as I want to ask the right hon. Lady an important question. That possibility has now been discouraged by the blatant use of Prime Minister's Question Time and the reference to tragedies in Northern Ireland by Conservative Members for strictly partisan purposes.

Mr. Butterfill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British mining industry now has the opportunity to become one of our most successful and prosperous industries? Does she share my hope that the British miners will demonstrate their innate common sense by voting in favour of flexible working and disregarding the Luddite, negative advice of Mr. Arthur Scargill?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that our Acts provide an opportunity for a secret ballot for the members of that trade union. I believe that miners should have the very latest technology and the best conditions. That will lead to a more efficient and prosperous industry, and I hope that they will not reject such a course of action.

Dr. Owen: In view of the appalling shooting in Woolwich today, and the further evidence of the widespread availability of pump-action shot guns, and so on, will the Prime Minister re-examine the whole question of the control of firearms? I have two suggestions in particular. First, will she look at the question of having to present a shotgun licence when buying ammunition—[Interruption.] This is a serious question. Many people are shocked and appalled by what happened in Woolwich and must be very grateful that no loss of police life took place.
Secondly, will the Prime Minister consider whether the time has come for another amnesty on all firearms, to encourage people with unlicensed firearms to make them available?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the maximum penalties for those who carry firearms with intent to commit a crime to life imprisonment. That is in our Criminal Justice Bill, which I hope will be fully supported. We are also examining matters such as the carrying of knives, which is causing

considerable concern to the police. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in view of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity during her busy day to note the concern expressed by some leading churchmen about the continued experimentation on foetuses without any rules or regulations to stop it? Bearing in mind the great concern of a large number of people within and outside the House, will she consider whether the time has come for legislation on the Warnock committee proposals?

The Prime Minister: The legislation on the Warnock committee proposals will not be introduced this year. As my hon. Friend knows, it will take a good deal of time to prepare and gives rise to very contentious issues. I hope that we shall be in a position to introduce it next year, but I understand that it may be a possibility that the proposals which previously came before the House from a private Member will come before us again in a private Member's Bill this Session.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: In the Government's plans for schools to charge for books, teaching material, visits, field trips and many other items, does the Prime Minister intend that those parents who have to survive on social security should be expected to meet those charges, or does she intend to change the social security regulations so that such people will have something with which to pay these new charges being imposed on them? The right hon. Lady will recall that about two and a quarter million children in this country live in households entirely dependent on benefits? Does she agree that it would be a great shame if their education was blighted because their parents cannot pay for those facilities in schools?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these charges have been extant for some time in education authorities on both sides of the political divide. He knows that there has been a case about it, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is putting out a consultation document on the subject. The hon. Gentleman must also be aware that when parents cannot pay, for the reasons that he gave, the parent-teacher association is usually able to find the necessary funds.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the courage, service and dedication of the Member commemorated above the door through which we all come in each day are likely to be remembered for far longer than most Members of this House?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I remember the day when that crest was put up.

Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister accept that the allegations that I reported to the House in my maiden speech I repeated yesterday outside of parliamentary privilege and am prepared to do so again? As those allegations have been corroborated by sources available to RTE, and in some instances by forensic evidence, does the Prime Minister accept that the only way to clear the names


of Captain Nairac and Airey Neave is for her to stop obstructing an inquiry into the traitorous activities of the MI5 officers responsible?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that it is a proper way to go about things by making smears and then calling for an inquiry. No inquiry is called for.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend mark the contrast between the honour and courage of Mr. Airey Neave and Captain Robert Nairac, each of whom was decorated for gallantry, and both of whom were murdered by the IRA, and the turpitude of some of their critics?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we have a great deal for which to thank Captain Nairac and our former colleague Airey Neave in the defence of freedom.

Mr. Maginnis: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, during her most recent talks with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, she raised the subject of the Irish Republic's failure to implement the European convention on the suppression of terrorism? Did she convey to him the concern of the House about that matter, and did she receive any reassurance or any specific date on when the convention would be implemented?

The Prime Minister: No. That matter was not raised in the brief talk that I had with the Taoiseach.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper workings of the usual channels are essential to parliamentary democracy, particularly to deal with, among other things, cowardly attacks upon the dead? If that is the case, will she reflect on how this can operate if the Opposition Whips Office is apparently completely denuded by the resignation of many Whips?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That hardly falls within the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister now convinced of the crucial importance to our manufacturing base of the Scottish steel industry? Will she therefore ensure that there is adequate investment in Ravenscraig to assure its future throughout this Parliament and beyond?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Ravenscraig's future was assured to August 1988 and we have not yet received proposals for after that time. There is nothing further to report than that which we said during the recent election campaign. The hon. Gentleman knows that every effort has been made to get as much work as possible into Ravenscraig.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order in the proper place, after the business statement.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to you that the point I raised when you made the original ruling that there would be——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the right hon. Member that I must apply the same rules to the Front Benches as to the Back Benches. We must have business questions next, please.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I have to insist—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Member will not do that. This practice is of some standing and it has been discussed with him. We must stick to the rules. The same rules must apply to the Front Benches and the Back Benches. Business questions, please.

Mr. Kinnock: I am anxious to do that, Mr. Speaker. I shall just ask the Leader of the House to announce the business for next week.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JULY — Motion for the Summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
TUESDAY 14 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order, followed by Motion on the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 15 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2) 1986–87 (HC No. 35), followed by Motion on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1986–87 (HC No. 23).
Motion on the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Order.
THURSDAY I6 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
Motion on the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments and Schemes) (Amendment) Order.
FRIDAY 17 JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 20 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ensure that time is provided next week for a procedural debate on the circumstances in which it is essential to raise, for instance, points of order when all the people who might have been associated with the matter that gave rise to them are likely to remain in the House? I ask that in view of the representations made on that point by the Leader of the Opposition when the ruling was initially considered in the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman also find time next week to have a procedural debate on the appropriateness of the form of the questions to the Prime Minister which, by their very definition, are taking the office of Speaker, making assumptions about the rules of order and raising questions which, whatever else they may imply, are not within the Prime Minister's general business? Perhaps we could have the right hon. Gentleman's response on that.
Early in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate next Monday, there will be a debate on the financing of local government, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment will be present to answer that debate so that he can give his views on the poll tax, in the same way as he is reported to have done to Conservative Members on Monday?
Before the House rises for the recess, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the arts, in view of the difficulties that are currently experienced by the Royal

Shakespeare Company and others, and of the statement made this week by the Minister for the Arts to the Council of Regional Arts Associations that those who are concerned about the future of the arts in Britain must simply
make the best of the political and economic climate, whatever their private views.
In view of the fact that British Telecom has been criticised by Oftel and consumers as the "worst public service" in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman shortly arrange for a full debate on the quality, accountability and charges of British Telecom since the corporation's privatisation?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement made this week by his hon. Friend the Minister for Health that 10,000 people in Britain could develop AIDS during the next five years is a further reminder of the serious threat that the syndrome poses? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore, ensure that the Government's response to the report of the Social Services Select Committee on that subject will be speedy and will reflect the Select Committee's concern about the levels of resources for research, health education, and treatment in relation to that disease?
Finally, could the House have an assurance that the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on the effects of local authority expenditure policies in education provision in England and Wales will be published before the recess as those reports are now already months later than usual?

Mr. Wakeham: Questions on Prime Minister's questions, whether they are in order, are a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. However, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on such matters, the best way might be a discussion through the usual channels to decide on the appropriate way of dealing with that matter.

Sir Anthony Grant: Where are they?

Mr. Wakeham: On the question referring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I shall refer that matter to him and consider how to deal with it.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a question about the arts and the Royal Shakespeare Company. The Arts Council, and not the Government, determines the level of support for individual arts bodies. The Arts Council and the Royal Shakespeare company are discussing the company's deficit and hope to reach a conclusion that will ensure the future of that centre of excellence. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts awaits the outcome of those discussions.
I take note of the point about British Telecom. Perhaps tomorrow's debate on the quality of industry might be the appropriate place for hon. Members who wish to raise such matters.
With reference to a debate on AIDS, I shall certainly refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, as I will the question of the education report, which the right hon. Gentleman also raised, to see whether that can be dealt with before the summer recess.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend consider that the conventions relating to maiden


speeches might also usefully be discussed through the usual channels when there are some? When shall we have an opportunity to discuss and settle the question of Members' pay? What form is the motion tabled by the Government likely to take on that occasion and shall we have a chance to discuss the secretarial allowance at the same time?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We want a six-day week as well.

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point about maiden speeches and that is something that we can discuss through the usual channels.
On Members' pay, I intend to table a motion reflecting the resolution that was passed by the House in June 1983. The linkage with the Civil Service grade will come into effect on 1 January 1988 and will determine subsequent annual adjustments. It is for the House to decide whether to confirm that arrangement. As I said last week, I intend to bring the matter to the House before the summer recess, and I hope that at the same time we can deal with the report of the Top Salaries Review Body on the secretarial allowance. Following discussions, I propose to accept the recommendations about the level of allowance and to take account of the TSRB's view on the tightening of arrangements for accountability.

Mr. David Alton: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to study my early-day motion 79?
[That this House notes the recommendation of the 2nd Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, HC350, that in some cases amendments should be permitted to motions to approve statutory instruments; and believes that this would he a desirable first step in reforming the procedure for Northern Ireland business.]
Coupled with that is the desirability of debating the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure, especially giving the House the ability to amend statutory instruments. Does he agree that an issue such as the Northern Ireland orders on Tuesday, concerning the opening of public houses on Sunday, will be decided without giving the House a chance to amend them and would he far better dealt with in the normal way which would apply in England, Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Wakeham: These are very complex issues which I cannot answer on the Floor of the House, but I hope that we can have discussions through the usual channels.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at least four reports of the Select Committee on Procedure in the previous Parliament have been before the House, some for as long as two years, and that the previous Leader of the House said that he thought the House would want to debate these matters early in the new Parliament? Does my right hon. Friend also recall that, for many weeks, there was a Government order on the Paper to carry out one of the resolutions which might have assisted the Chair? Will he ensure that prime time is found to debate these matters, with the possibility of a resolution of the House, as soon as we get back after the summer recess, if it cannot be held next week? If senior Members of the House give a large amount of time to considering matters which the House has asked them to consider, they are unlikely to want to continue doing that if their reports are entirely ignored.

Mr. Wakeham: First of all, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, and to the members of that Committee. We shall have to consider these matters, and we shall see what can he done as soon as possible after the summer recess.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to setting up the Select Committees, especially the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Although the Opposition appreciate the Government's difficulty in getting Members to serve on that Select Committee, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we have a superfluity of willing Members to serve on that Select Committee? The work of the House should not be delayed because of the paucity of Conservative Members in Scotland.

Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman will see from today's Order Paper, some progress is being made. These matters take a little time, but it is my intention to make progress as quickly as possible.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment of my constituents that the House could debate for three hours on Monday the business of the Today newspaper, in which no individual lost any money, yet the House has been unable to debate the fact that some councils have sunk hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money into the News on Sunday? Would it not have been more appropriate for us to debate the use of ratepayers' money rather than the use of an individual's money?

Mr. Wakeham: The business of the House is arranged through the usual channels. We try to arrange debates which meet the requirements of all the parties in the House. I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not think that that was an appropriate subject for debate. However, the important issues that he raises would be appropriate to one of the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday night.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House told the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that he hoped to make progress as soon as possible on the issue of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Will there be a statement before the summer recess? Is he aware of the widespread rumours circulating in this place and reported in the Scottish press, that that Committee may disappear altogether? Does he accept that that is not a solution to the predicament of the Conservative Government in Scotland which would be acceptable to the Scottish people or to Opposition Members?

Mr. Wakeman: I do not want to add anything to what I said to the hon. Member for Dumfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), except that I would not believe everything I read in the Scottish press.

Mr. Michael Latham: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he proposes to test the opinion of the House before the summer recess on the question of televising our proceedings? As one who, in the past has always voted against it, I am beginning to think that I was wrong, in view of the behaviour in the past few days.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything more to what I said last week on that. I recognise that this is a subject that we shall have to deal with in the fairly near future, but I do not foresee time before the summer recess.

Dr. John Reid: Does the Leader of the House accept the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that there is great concern on the Opposition side of the House that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be established as soon as possible and an announcement made? Will he also note that, if there is a reluctance in certain quarters on the Government Benches to fill those places, there are plenty of Members on the Opposition Benches who are ready and willing to fill them?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything more, except That plenty of my hon. Friends are also most anxious for the Select Committees to be set up.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the Leader of the House please make time available for a discussion of the ancient procedures and customs of the House? To explain my call for this debate, may I just say that maiden speeches in the past were always observed with great indulgence by the House, the reason being that an hon. Member could be heard, perhaps for the only time, in silence and without interruption to give the new hon. Member a chance to break the ice in this great Chamber. It is disgraceful when hon. Members who believe that they know it all disregard the conventions but when they attack the British Army it is despicable.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this. I have undertaken to have discussions through the usual channels, and that I will do.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House accept from one of the new Members who knows it all that people at home get an impression of this place through Prime Minister's Question Time and that the planted question and the open question bring our Parliament and our democracy into disrepute? Therefore, will he make time for a debate on the procedures of the House at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Wakeham: If I may modestly say to the hon. Gentleman, I am unlikely to be more forthcoming to him than I was to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think I can say anything more than I said to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to assess the progress of the legislation in the Queen's Speech in terms of the programme for Parliament? Is he satisfied that time will be found for all the measures in the Queen's Speech, particularly the major items such as the community charge and rent decontrol?

Mr. Wakeham: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are making very good progress and that we shall have a lively Session when we come back after the summer recess.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, his modesty apart, he should have been far more forthcoming when the Leader of the Opposition asked about Prime Minister's Question Time, because there is evidence of abuse by the Prime Minister?

I suggest to him that it is the job of the Leader of the House to listen to hon. Members on both sides when they raise matters that are of interest to the House and are not simply party political issues. Therefore, why does he not recommend a debate on Prime Minister's Questions as soon as possible?

Mr. Wakeham: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that for me, with my background, to say that we have discussions through the usual channels could not make the matter more important.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the way that anomalies in the Shops Act 1950 are affecting many hundreds of thousands of retailers? My own Southampton city council is having a purge of prosecutions, but the magistrates are taking a very lenient view. One of the great crimes in Ocean village in Southampton was selling a pair of boxer shorts on a Sunday. Is it not time for those anomalies to be cleared away and is he not aware of the vast amounts of ratepayers' money that are being wasted on those quite absurd prosecutions?

Mr. Wakeham: I am unlikely to forget that in the previous Parliament the Government sought to deal with some of the anomalies, but the House felt otherwise. The problem still remains and I shall refer my hon. Friend's remarks to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Leader of the House agree that on many occasions I have raised the subject of overcrowding in the prison system? Does he further agree that the current evidence is that the overcrowding is now reaching almost crisis level? Should that not be a subject for an early debate so that some solution can be found before we find that the summer of discontent comes upon us once again and the riots of last year spread from Scotland to England?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that is an important matter as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to whom I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week the Department of Health and Social Security tabled no fewer than 20 statutory instruments that are important for the management of occupational pension schemes? Will he consider my suggestion that the appropriate way for the House to deal with them before we rise, since some of them are due to come into effect this month, would be to refer them for consideration by a Standing Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: I will look at my hon. Friend's suggestion and be in touch with him later.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The Leader of the House will be aware that no two people could be more diametrically opposed in their views on the future of Northern Ireland or terrorism than myself and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). However, will he remember that there are more people involved in the current controversy than the hon. Member for Brent, East and those who seek to defend the honour of Captain Nairac and Airey Neave? Will he remember that Captain Nairac operated in my constituency and that John Francis Green, whom it is alleged he killed, was a constituent of mine? Will he remember that a member of the Miami Showband was a relative of someone in my constituency


party and that two men constituents of mine are currently serving life imprisonment for the murder of the Miami Showband?
Central to the issue for myself and my constituents is the allegation that the gun used in the killing of John Francis Green was used in the Miami Showband killings. Believe it or not, that allegation has never been made to me by either of the two men——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not make a statement.

Mr. McCusker: —or their families and it is important. If there is evidence available to prove or disprove the allegation, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made as soon as possible, to clear the air once and for all?

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. However, I will refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Marlow: When will the Government be able to introduce measures to assist the millions of pensioners, whom we all met during the election campaign, who have limited occupational pensions and limited savings but who get no support from supplementary benefit and the state and who find themselves no better off than their neighbours who blued the lot when they were in work?

Mr. Wakeham: There is nothing in that question to affect next week's business. However, I will refer my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that a Speaker's Conference on political devolution was appointed in October 1919 and reported in April 1920. He will recall that recommendations were made concerning the powers to be devolved to domestic legislatures. Why should that precedent not be repeated? May I ask for support in a request to the Procedure Committee that such a Speaker's Conference be set up once again?

Mr. Wakeham: We gave not yet set up a Procedure Committee, but if there is a general demand for one, of course we shall set one up. The hon. Gentleman does not necessarily require my support to refer a matter to it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend accept, rather more readily, one of the requests of the Leader of the Opposition that we should have a debate on AIDS at an early date, preferably before we rise for the summer recess, not only in the light of the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, which was published just before the dissolution of the last Parliament, but because one of the more offensive new Opposition Members appears to go around the country promoting active homosexuality, which is one of the major causes of the spread of the disease?

Mr. Tony Banks: Give us a kiss!

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that AIDS is a very important matter, but I am afraid I do not see time for a debate next week.

Mr. Allan Roberts: In the light of statements made by Ministers during the general election denying that

the Government were going to increase the rents of tenants, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the speech of the chairman of the Housing Corporation, reported today? In that speech, he said that the housing association movement will have to charge profit or market rents rather than fair rents and that the Housing Corporation will implement that policy in advance of the Government's proposals. Is it the Government's proposal to switch from fair rents to profit rents?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for one minute the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what was said during the election. However, I will refer the matter to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment

Mr. Michael Brown: Referring to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), and the assurances given by my right hon. Friend that good progress is being made on the legislative programme, can my right hon. Friend specifically assure us that, at an early stage, we will have a Second Reading debate on the Bill to decontrol new lettings of accommodation?

Mr. Wakeham: I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that we are making good progress, but I am not prepared to state any dates or times when debates will take place.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House recall that, when the House agreed to a time limit on the Consolidated Fund Bill, assurances were given that the House would be given a full day for the Consolidated Fund Bill and that it would not lose time to motions such as that on the summer Adjournment? Since that undertaking will be broken again on Monday, will the Leader of the House make sure that, for the rest of his tenure, we get a full day for the Consolidated Fund Bill and extra time for such things as the summer or Christmas Adjournment debate? Otherwise, Back Benchers will yet again be robbed of time by the Government.

Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly look at the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend was present when the Prime Minister referred to the possibility of an hon. Member bringing forward a Private Member's Bill on the subject of experimentation on human embryos. If such a Bill is produced and receives overwhelming support on Second Reading, such as that which was given to Enoch Powell's Bill, will the Government offer their facilities?

Mr. Wakeham: That has the ring of a hypothetical question and I do not believe that I can answer it.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some time needs to be set aside to discuss some of the effects of the disastrous privatisation policies? My district health authority faces chaos because the laundry service was put out to private tender. The authority was forced to take the tender of private contractors rather than the cheapest tender. The authority now faces chaos because the private contractor has put up its charges by 50 per cent. We do not know what to do about the laundry service in Halifax.

Mr. Wakeham: I suggest to the hon. Lady that there are one or two occasions next week when I believe that she may be able to raise the matters that concern her.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Bearing in mind the recent appeals that have been allowed by the Secretary of State in Berkshire and elsewhere, which have resulted in the excessive development of housing in those areas, will my right hon. Friend arrange time for a debate on planning and development? That should not be during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, as that would not give enough time. However, there should be a debate because this policy appears to conflict totally with the Government's aim of rejuvenating the inner cities.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is a very important matter, but I do not see there will be time for it next week.

Mr. Greville Janner: When can the House debate the plight of the outer cities—the estates such as Braunstone, in my constituency? The people on that estate resent the help that is being given, quite rightly, to the inner cities. They feel that nothing is being done about the deep disadvantage, unemployment and need that they suffer because they are not in the centre of a city.

Mr. Wakeham: Of course, these are important matters, but there is no time for them next week.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give us an idea about the motion on rates which is to come before the House next Wednesday? Will he bear in mind the deep suffering of individuals in Ealing who are facing a 65 per cent. rates increase from the Ealing Labour council? Many pensioners are going without meals to try to pay this increase. There are also great difficulties for industries that are having to find a 57·3 per cent. industrial rate increase, also set by the Ealing Labour council. Consequently, that increase will have a bad effect on jobs. Will the business on Wednesday include measures for rate-capping authorities such as Ealing?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about the ratepayers of Ealing. I shall see that the motion is tabled as soon as possible.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Before the House proceeds to debate the televising of its proceedings, would the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider my suggestion of last week that he should produce a Green Paper with audio illustrations of how the media misrepresent and misreport what really goes on in this place, and avoid the hours of serious exchange and serious debate? Would he make an additional consideration; if the proceedings of the House are to be televised, what protection does the House have from the Prime Minister abusing set planted questions, however out of order, so that she can make her views known on any topic she wishes to do so?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a minute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that my right hon. Friend abused Question Time. She answered the question, and she answered it forcibly. I shall certainly look at the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate early-day motion No. 2 standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) on abortion, especially in

view of the answer given to me that, in 1986, two abortions out of 147,000 were carried out because the mother's life was in danger?
[That this House notes that since the enactment of the Abortion Act 1967 some two and a half million unborn children have been destroyed through legal abortion; notes that a large proportion of these abortions have taken place on demand, which was never the intention of Parliament; notes that since 1975 all Bills to amend the Abortion Act have had a substantial majority, but have been frustrated by a minority determined to thwart the will of Parliament; believes that the time has come for this House to beenabled to decide how the Act should be amended to bring to an end the tragic consequences of legal abortion; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give the new Parliament time for such a debate at the earliest possible opportunity.]
Will he further give time from the Government's allocation in view of the fact that the original Bill was given Government support?

Mr. Wakeham: Certainly, those are important matters. The Government intend to issue a White Paper later this year. I cannot promise a debate next week.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the length of the summer recess? Some hon. Members on both sides of the House believe a recess from 24 July to 21 October is far too long. It is misunderstood by people outside. It plays into the hands of the Government by making it impossible for hon. Members to hold Ministers to account. As we are to have discussions on Members' pay, why can we not have a debate on the length of the recess?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am pleased to be able to say that there will be a debate on Monday night on just that point—and not only that, but he will have a chance to vote against it if he does not like the Government's proposal.

Sir Bernard Braine: Earlier, my right hon. Friend answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who was concerned about possible legislation on the subject of embryo experimentation, saying it was not a matter for him. Will he take note here and now that not only in the House but in the country as a whole there is a deep feeling of unease and repugnance at the possibility of the Government fudging the issue? There must be an early debate—if not now, soon after our return—so that the Government's intentions on the matter should be made plain to the House and to the country.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strong feelings that many hon. Members have on such an important issue. The Government will publish a White Paper setting out their views. After that White Paper is published is the right time for the Government to arrange a debate.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Because of the continuing cuts in the Health Service in Scotland and the deleterious effects that they are having on the health of the nation, particularly in my constituency, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the matter before the House prorogues for the summer recess?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis, but I shall refer his point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Edward Leigh: As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that it would be appropriate for a private Member to move a Bill on late abortions, if a private Member were to use his allocation in the ballot so to do, would the Government consider giving Government time to such a Bill? If they did not do so, it would be all too easy for a small minority in the House to use time-wasting tactics to defeat it.

Mr. Wakeham: In all these matters, it is better to proceed slowly and see how we get along. Certainly, at the Dispatch Box now, I cannot say that the time-honoured conventions regarding private Members' Bills can be altered immediately.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week about the implementation of the Tory manifesto commitment to consider changes to improve the Government of Scotland? Now that the Tory Government have been even more resoundingly rejected by the people of Scotland, and senior Tory Members, such as the last Leader of the House, the former Prime Minister and the present Father of the House, have said that more recognition should be given to the Scottish political dimension, when will the present Leader of the House show some real leadership and arrange for a statement to bemade at the Dispatch Box that the Government intend to set up a devolved Scottish assembly with legislative and economic powers, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Scottish people?

Mr. Wakeham: There may be doubts about whether the hon. Gentleman's views on Scotland are those of the majority of Scottish hon. Members. Certainly, I do not anticipate my right hon. Friend making a statement next week.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Since a White Paper is a declaration of policy, should not a debate on foetus experimentation occur before the declaration of policy rather than after it? If it occurs after it, it will occur too late. Will my right hon. Friend revise the decision that he gave in reply to the question asked by the Father of the House and arrange the debate before the White Paper is published rather than after it?

Mr. Wakeham: Certainly, if there is a strong view I shall discuss it with all those who are interested to find out the most acceptable way to proceed.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been standing, but I ask them to be brief, please.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: May we have a debate next week on the specific criteria that are used by inner-city task forces in giving grant aid? A registered charity in the inner-city part of my constituency runs day-care facilities for pre-school children and enables their parents to stay in jobs. It runs the only latchkey project for children of school age up to the age of eight in the Handsworth area of Birmingham. When it asked for help to expand its vital project, it was told by the inner-city task force that it met all the criteria but was not politically visible enough. That smacks of a Conservative party pork barrel in inner cities. That is totally unacceptable, and it should be debated in the House.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend, but I certainly do not accept the strictures that he put on the Government.

Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent television coverage of accidents and fatalities that have occurred in children's playgrounds. The issue focuses on safety outside the workplace. Since there are about 3 million accidents a year and about 500,000 admissions to hospital, will my right hon. Friend give thought to a debate on the subject so that the House may contribute some initiatives to tackling the serious problem and perhaps relieve our pressured accident and emergency hospital departments?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raised an important subject. I shall see what can be done. I am afraid it will not be before the recess.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Leader of the House give a simple assurance that a Select Committee on Scottish affairs will be set up?

Mr. Wakeham: I have every intention that we should set up a Select Committee on Scottish affairs if that is the general wish of the House.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those hon. Members with northern constituencies would welcome an early opportunity to debate proposals on local government finance and to underline the advantages for business on Tyneside and Teesside of a national non-domestic rate?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend would like to have a debate on this important issue. However, I cannot promise one next week.

Mr. Skinner: When will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a proper debate on the way in which the big four banks are offloading their debts onto the backs of the taxpayers? Is he aware that the negotiations with the Inland Revenue in respect of the National Westminster and Midland banks, with Barclays and Lloyds to follow, could result, according to information today, in the taxpayer having to find £875 million to pay for the entrepreneurial so-called risk that the banks took several years ago? If it is right for the Government to withdraw rate support grant from hard-pressed inner cities, to hammer the unemployed and the sick and to give only 80p a week to the pensioners, why are we not having a debate about the transfer of nearly £1 billion to the banks?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for one minute the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation. I am not in a position to refer to the individual tax affairs of any bank. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of combating homelessness, and the fact that there would not be so much homelessness were it not for the Rent Acts, which have dried up supplies of accommodation that would otherwise be available for rent. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is not able to say when we shall have the Second Reading debate on the Bill promised in the Queen's Speech, but will he confirm that there will be such a Second Reading debate during the course of this Session?

Mr. Wakeham: I can confirm it absolutely.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that some alarm is felt by Labour Members because of his response to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), with the implication that Government members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs might not be Members representing Scottish constituencies? Can we have assurances that that will not be the case, that the number on the Committee will not be less than nine and that it will be set up fairly soon?

Mr. Wakeham: Membership of departmental Select Committees is not a matter for me.

Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Newton.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We will take the statement first.

Child Abuse (Cleveland)

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I will, with permission, make a statement about child abuse in Cleveland.
The House is already aware of certain action which has been taken by the authorities there in response to the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere. The Northern regional health authority has set up an independent professional panel to provide a second opinion on cases already subject to investigation. It has also established a special group to consider future cases. On Tuesday, the Cleveland social services department agreed with the police and the health authority about medical examinations where child sexual abuse is suspected. I hope, as will the House, that these steps will go some way to overcome the problems which have arisen.
However, having studied the reports for which I asked last week from the regional health authority and the social services inspectorate, together with representations by hon. Members and the material that they have made available to me, we have concluded that there should be a full inquiry into the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland in recent months.
Therefore, we propose to establish a statutory inquiry headed by a High Court judge. The judge will be assisted by a panel of three assessors: one with medical experience, one with social services experience and one with experience of police work. It will be necessary to ensure that there is no risk of conflict between the inquiry and litigation presently arising from individual cases. It will be for the judge to determine how best to carry out the inquiry, but I can say now that its report will be published.
Important as it is to resolve and learn from the situation which has arisen in Cleveland, it is not less important to carry forward the work already set in hand to improve our capacity to tackle the problem of child abuse wherever it may occur.
Draft guidance on the way in which different authorities should work together in this sector was issued last year, covering for the first time the specific issue of sexual abuse. Preparation of the final version of this guidance is being pressed ahead, with a view to issuing it as soon as possible, after taking account of any relevant lessons from Cleveland and the current inquiries into the deaths of Tyra Henry and Kimberley Carlile. Meanwhile, I am asking the social services inspectorate to check with all social services authorities that proper co-ordinating arrangements have been made in their areas.
As envisaged in the draft guidance, we shall arrange with local authorities for the collection of national statistics on child abuse. I shall be discussing with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, whose director I met this morning, the contribution it can make from its special experience in maintaining child abuse registers in various parts of the country.
The standing medical advisory committee has been asked to prepare guidance for doctors on the clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse. Practice guidelines are also being prepared for social workers and for nurses, including


health visitors. The professional groups concerned are being asked to aim to complete this work by the end of the year.
The House will also be aware that the European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment published yesterday on five cases from the United Kingdom, has found inadequate our legislation on parental access to children in local authority care. These cases pre-date legal changes made in 1983 and 1986 to strengthen parents' rights, but we fully accept the need to make further changes to reflect the court's findings.
We shall be studying the full judgment in detail, in relation to the proposals of the White Paper on child care law published earlier this year. In framing legislation, we shall also wish to take account of the lessons of Cleveland and the other inquiries to which I have referred, but our aim will be to bring such legislation forward at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Minister aware that, while the Opposition in principle welcome any initiative that will cool the partisan sensationalism of the past few weeks, we are concerned that this does not turn into a narrow judgmental inquiry confined to one area when what is needed is to implement new agreed child care procedures throughout the country to safeguard the rights of both parents and children alike? What specific evidence of a breakdown in medical and social procedures has been discovered which now justifies a full public inquiry? Will the Minister state the precise terms of reference for the inquiry, which, surprisingly, are left vague in his statement? Will this inquiry be in public or behind closed doors?
Why is it that, after 12 years of mounting public anxiety over child abuse and 13 months of consultation, the Government still have not produced an advisory code of practice for handling such cases? Will he give a firm date when it will be produced?
Why is there nothing in this statement about implementing last year's proposals for reform of the law on child care and family services, which command all-party agreement and are tailor-made for strengthening parental rights, which have been such an issue in Cleveland? The Government produced a White Paper on these agreed proposals in January this year. Why was there no Bill to implement them set out in the Queen's Speech?
Is it not extremely regrettable that the Government have found time this Session for the introduction of the poll tax and the liberalisation of the licensing laws but not for reform of child sex abuse procedures, which can cause enormous anguish to parents and children alike? Is it not wrong that, under the present procedure, children can be removed from parents for a month without either the parents or the children having the chance to oppose the move in court? As 6,000 children each year are removed from their homes through place of safety orders, will the Minister accept that all such orders should be confirmed by a court within a week, with the parents having an automatic right to attend and to be legally represented?
Above all, will the Minister accept that a national consensus does not yet exist, either on the criteria for identifying child sexual and physical abuse or on the interprofessional procedures to be followed when such cases are suspected? Will he acknowledge that, until such a consensus has been created, no reliable statistics of the national incidence of child abuse can be attempted, and

the conflict between paediatricians and police surgeons that we have seen in Cleveland will not be resolved? Will he accept that a judicial inquiry into specific events in Cleveland is not an appropriate vehicle to achieve such a national consensus?
Finally, will the Minister accept that his responsibility is not discharged merely by removing a child from the hands of its abuser, but that care programmes should guarantee necessary counselling, support and family therapy if we are ever to break the tragic cycle whereby an abused child becomes an abuser?

Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in approximately reverse order. The issue of consensus to which the hon. Gentleman referred is indeed a difficult one. That is one reason why we have set about the drawing up of guidelines in relation to clinical diagnoses and practice, and why we shall be having discussions with local authorities and others about the collection of statistics, including, as I made clear in my statement, the NSPCC. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the difficulties in this area and the fact that there are no easy answers.
Far from not referring to the reform of child care law in my statement, the last two paragraphs of the statement—which the hon. Gentleman cannot have heard—made clear our intention to legislate as soon as practicable, but, not least, to take account of yesterday's judgment of the European Court. It would be right to do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about the terms of reference and the conduct of the inquiry. The details will need to be determined in conjunction with the judge who is appointed to conduct the inquiry. That is the normal practice.
On the introduction of agreed procedures, one reason why I have announced to the House an inquiry that we hope can produce an early report specifically about Cleveland is that we do not want an enormously lengthy report that would necessarily be likely to delay further progress in introducing precisely those procedures that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I would have hoped that both sides of the House would have welcomed my hon. Friend's statement, which was sensible and sound. I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that child abuse cases should really be heard in a professional and properly structured family court. Will my hon. Friend take heed of what his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday about family courts, and may we have some legislation on this issue as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend has said and undertake to draw it to the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I thank the Minister, his Department and officials for all the hard work they have been doing as the lead Department for child protection. It is deeply appreciated.
Does the Minister accept that child protection has to include mental, physical and sexual abuse? Does he concede that, when we talk of child care, care must mean care? Sadly, it does not always mean care. Will my hon. Friend go one step further after the inquiry and examine


the area of care to ensure that, when children are taken into care, that trust is not betrayed? Unfortunately, it sometimes is.

Mr. Newton: We are certainly very concerned that when, unhappily, it is necessary to take a child into care, local authorities should have appropriate policies for taking care of that child in the best way. However, the focus of the present concern, and of the inquiry, is the processes by which children are taken into care. It is important to ensure that those are correctly handled.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the Minister aware that the people of Cleveland in my constituency will welcome his long and detailed statement today and his announcement of the inquiry? I thank the Minister for the courtesy and diligence that he has shown in what is, after all, a sensitive matter.
I look upon sexual abuse as a heinous and evil crime, and I want every effort made to prosecute the perpetrators. Will he give the House an assurance that the specific things that happened at Middlesbrough general hospital, where children were taken in for specific ailments but were analysed and investigated for sexual abuse, will be part of the inquiry? Will the fact that parents and children were held for hours on end, and that children were woken in the middle of the night and taken to a room to be photographed, and that the police were obstructed in their duty of investigating what is a serious crime be part of the inquiry? No one wants the Health Service to be brought into disrepute or discredited, and it is in the interests of the Health Service that the inquiry should complete its investigations and studies, that the report should be published, and that the Health Service be maintained with its reputation intact.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I shall reciprocate by saying how grateful I am to him for the way in which he has kept me in touch with his own work and made his papers fully available to me. One of the difficulties with the inquiry, as I said in my statement, is the interrelationship with other investigations of a judicial kind, or under the hospital complaints procedure, which are already going on. Therefore, I cannot be specific at this stage about precisely how the judge will feel it right to go about his work, or the extent to which he will be able to look at particular cases that are already the subject of other forms of action. In general terms, I have no doubt that he will wish to examine the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made about events at Middlesbrough general hospital and other places.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome the judicial inquiry that the Minister has announced, because the sheer concentration of cases will not go away and because a period of calm is required.
Will the terms of reference be drafted in such a way that the evidence that we have obtained in Cleveland and the remit of the judge in the inquiry will enable national comparisons to be made and national lessons to be learnt? Finally, what powers will the inquiry have? Will it have the power to summon witnesses, to take evidence on oath and to take action for contempt when witnesses are unwilling to give evidence?

Mr. Newton: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point is that this is a statutory inquiry, and it will have the powers to which he referred.
As regards the terms of reference, it is certainly my expectation, subject to discussion with the judge, that, while the initial focus will be on Cleveland, the inquiry will be empowered to draw conclusions that are of relevance elsewhere.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but will he assure the House that he will take time during the inquiry to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some of the delays that occur when these cases come to court and the court wishes to appoint guardians ad litem. That is causing much concern in other parts of the country, as well as in Cleveland.

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend as my hon. Friend asks.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members are worried about the way in which Cleveland has been highlighted and vilified? We know that the problem of child sex abuse has been neglected for many years, and that a child that is being sexually abused has its whole life damaged. There is a danger that any authority that tries to move on the issue, and therefore finds more cases, will be attacked in the press for doing so, that parents who are not abusing their children will feel in danger of losing their children, and that the net result will be that the abusers will continue to get away with their crimes. We know that there is more abuse than that which is dealt with. The research is clear on that point. Parents who abuse always deny it.
It is a mistake to have a judge heading the inquiry. The judiciary does not have a good record on the issue and it is a mistake to confine the inquiry to Cleveland. We need the best lessons and the best practice in this country and internationally so that we can deal better and more sensitively with the needs of children who are being sexually abused. Most of those children are not being protected or given the appropriate therapy and support at present.

Mr. Newton: It is precisely because I see some risk of the kind that the hon. Lady outlined in the first part of her question that it is right to have the kind of inquiry that I have proposed focused primarily on Cleveland. The risks about which she is rightly concerned will multiply as long as public confidence is not restored about what is alleged to have happened in Cleveland.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend. The inquiry should be focused, specific and time-limited. There has been near hysterical public reaction to what seems like a professional over-reaction in Cleveland. The vast majority of child abuse cases arise because of what appears to be a lack of professional vigilance, not an idiosyncratic excess of professional interference. We shall have to co-ordinate our professional operations and the conduct of our professionals, but primarily our health and welfare services are there to protect not the interests of parents and professionals, but the welfare of vulnerable children.

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am grateful to her.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the inquiry, the way in which the judge will be assisted by assessors and the fact that the report will be public. I hope that the inquiry will be wide-ranging and that as far as possible—given that the inquiry needs to be speedy—the judge will take the comments of hon. Members into account.
The Minister said at the end of the statement that there will be legislation at the earliest practicable opportunity. That must mean next year. It is 13 years since the Finer committee recommended family courts, and a year has passed since we had all-party agreement on the need to reform child care law. As has already been said, many less important pieces of legislation for this year were announced in the Queen's Speech. There is no justification for the Government not legislating at the beginning of the next Session to take into account this inquiry and the European Court judgment, because these are vital national issues.

Mr. Newton: I cannot go beyond the words that I used in my statement. Those words show our clear wish to make progress in this area, taking account of recent events.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I appreciate the method of approach adopted by the Minister. Will he bear in mind that in many cases one parent can be entirely innocent of the other parent being involved? If we are to get a balance between the child and the parents, is it not very much better to have a family solution for the beneft of the parents themselves?

Mr. Newton: Yes. Again, I very much agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend has said.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome the Minister's statement. He said that he is to consult the NSPCC, and it is right that he should do so. May I also advise him to seek the advice of the officials of the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children? It, too, has many years of experience, and the Minister must remember that it works within a different legal framework.
I am sure that the Minister is aware, although other hon. Members may not be, that a significant number of referrals about alleged child abuse come from neighbours and even the families of the children concerned. Voluntary agencies and social work departments have sought to establish a climate of opinion which encourages the families of abused children to come forward. Does it not make sense to ensure that that positive development is not diminished or retarded by unhelpful publicity and thoughtless criticism made in this House and elsewhere?

Mr. Newton: Again, rather as I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), one of the reasons for the sort of inquiry that I have proposed is that we hope it will act speedily to respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley)—the re-establishment of confidence in Cleveland. That is important so that the fears that have arisen there will not spread to other parts of the country and undermine good developments of the kind that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

I am sorry if I inadvertently appeared to have ignored Scotland. I shall certainly ensure that we take note of the views of the RSSPCC.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that the care and speed with which he has acted in this matter is deeply appreciated? In fully supporting the views and thanks expressed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), in whose area these sad cases occurred, may I ask whether my hon. Friend accepts that many of these problems could in part have been dealt with if the Government had acted on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Services? That Committee carried out an in-depth inquiry into children in care. It did not deal specifically with the matter of child abuse, but the Committee's particular recommendation about the formation and establishment of children's courts would have made a major contribution to the prevention of these cases. Will my hon. Friend also accept that a valuable part is played by police surgeons in identifying and dealing with these matters? I hope that their contribution, experience and expertise will not be overlooked.

Mr. Newton: I have made it clear that one of the assessors will be someone with experience of police work.
My hon. Friend spoke about the Select Committee on Social Services. I am well aware that the Government, the House and, indeed, the country gained much from the work of the Committee. However, I resist the conclusion — if such a conclusion was implied — that the Government have not been taking vigorous and effective action to make progress on these matters.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead' of us. I shall call hon. Members who have been persistently rising, but I hope that we can have questions on the statement concluded by 4.45 pm.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Minister ask the inquiry team to ignore many or all of the comments that have been made in the House, especially comments along the lines that there has been obstruction of the police and that professional workers have been over-reacting? All those comments prejudge the evidence and therefore prejudge the conclusions. Will he also take this opportunity to reassure those who work in this very sensitive area—doctors, health visitors, nurses and social workers—that the Government support their activities? The frenzied atmosphere generated either in the House or in the newspapers in recent weeks makes their job more difficult. Some reassurance from the Government or from the Minister that the primary responsibility is always for the safety of the child would be very welcome.

Mr. Newton: I certainly echo the hon. Gentleman's last sentence. I hope it is implicit in everything that I have said and done over a much longer period than the last fortnight that we greatly value the work of all the people who are involved in seeking to tackle those problems.
I cannot respond quite so forthcomingly to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that the House as a whole would take it rather amiss if I asked an inquiry to ignore everything that was said in this House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the Minister accept that many of us are very pleased about the tremendous


emphasis that he is putting on inter-professional cooperation? Will he also accept that co-operation on the ground depends far more on the quality of the one or two people working at ground level than on which profession they belong to? Will he give an assurance that he will be very careful not to be dragged down the path of automatically giving guidance that one profession should be the lead profession at local level in cases of this kind?

Mr. Newton: Yes. I have always been very conscious that the issue of guidance or circulars will not achieve as much as anyone would like if there is not practical working co-operation between individuals on the ground. That is one of the problems that anyone faces in this area.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the sexual abuse of a child is a most serious and tragic event. He will also agree that it is extremely difficult for many and almost impossible for the vast majority of children to do anything about the situation.
I am sure he will also agree that social services departments throughout the land have an obligation to act promptly if they suspect that any child is being sexually or physically abused. We must take care to ensure that social workers do not become over-cautious because of remarks, such as those made by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), that social services departments might be guilty of over-reacting. Many of us think that perhaps on some occasions they act rather cautiously.
On a number of occasions the Minister mentioned parents' rights, but does he agree that children also have rights?
I welcome, as do other hon. Members, the inquiry into the matter in Cleveland, but will the Minister give the House an assurance that the inquiry will be concerned not solely with the social services department at Cleveland but will involve other authorities, such as the police and the health authority that may have been involved in what happened in Cleveland?

Mr. Newton: I go along with the spirit of much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to his specific question, if he looks at my statement he will find that it refers not to any one authority but to the arrangemants for dealing with cases of suspected child abuse, including, in particular, child sexual abuse in Cleveland. That manifestly is intended to embrace the work of all the authorities that are involved.

Mr. Bob Hayward: I welcome the Minister's rapid announcement of an inquiry, but will he say when the judge will be appointed and who will head the inquiry?
Further, will he clarify his comments with regard to adoption? Will there be a review of the guidelines used by social services departments with regard to adoption practices and the people whom they consider suitable for adoption? I have recently received two cases which express concern about two social services departments' guidelines which are being applied to potentially adoptive parents.

Mr. Newton: We shall be consulting my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor about the appointment of the judge. I hope that it will be possible to make the name known within a week or so.

Ms. Short: May we have a woman, please?

Mr. Newton: The point about adoption does not relate directly to the issues that have arisen in Cleveland, although it is closely related. I take on board the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister consider the question of additional funds for Cleveland county council? I accept the point that a number of different services will be included, but there has been great pressure on Cleveland's social services over the past couple of months, and clearly it will increase in the months to come.

Mr. Newton: I think it would be a little premature for me to come to such conclusions at present. The hon. Lady will be aware that last year there was a substantial increase in the provision for social services generally which took account of pressure on children's services and the need for training. In the next few months we shall be considering provision and related matters for next year which will take account of these issues, but I cannot make a specific promise from the Dispatch Box about resources for Cleveland.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that the setting up of the inquiry will be warmly welcomed by professional and lay people, not least because it should help to establish the facts of the matter as distinct from the rumours and speculation that have surrounded it in the media? One of the dangers of setting up an inquiry is the possibility that there will not be action until it reports. Therefore, I was delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is going ahead with the establishment of a national child abuse register and with the issue of national guidelines. Will he say a little more with regard to the possibility of legislation? Is he aware that he will have the full support of Conservative Members for any steps that he may take to get the White Paper turned into legislative form in the present Session of Parliament, which is rather longer than normal?

Mr. Newton: I cannot go beyond what I said in my statement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, not least because I know of his close interest and involvement in these matters through his work with the NSPCC. I am glad to say that the NSPCC thinks it right to have an urgent, focused inquiry so that the action that is needed to make progress on other fronts is not held up.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I join in the all-party welcome of the Minister's statement, but will the inquiry or the Minister's Department be considering the provision of independent counselling and advice for parents whose children have gone on to the "at-risk" register or where it is suspected that there has been abuse? I have received a number of cases in recent months from parents who have wanted some independent qualified advice on what they should do in those circumstances. Not all of those parents have acted in a criminal or evil manner and many of them need help and advice. Will that help and advice be provided through Government offices?

Mr. Newton: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that that matter goes rather wider than the inquiry that I have announced. We shall wish to consider with the judge the need to ensure that parents and children are effectively represented in the proceedings of the inquiry.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the setting up of the inquiry, as I am sure the whole country does, but, without wishing to constrain it, in what sort of time scale does my hon. Friend expect the inquiry to report? During that time, with regard to the guidelines that he has talked about, will he ensure that they are communicated directly to county councils and magistrates, who sometimes make these orders?

Mr. Newton: The draft guidelines were widely circulated and brought a number of comments which need to be and are being taken into account in the further work. I said that we were asking the social services inspectorate to check that appropriate action has been taken already in the light of those draft guidelines. If further action is needed, it will be taken.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the inquiry and think that the right decision has been made. However, many junior policemen — young constables and sergeants—are not competent or trained to deal with these matters in as sensitive a way as they should when they visit families where these matters have been reported. Will the Minister raise that matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers with a view to it briefing policemen on what is expected when reports are brought before them?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the appropriate course is for me to undertake to bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Richard Holt: I thank my hon. Friend, on behalf of my constituents in Middlesbrough and Cleveland, for the decision to have this inquiry. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, despite the media publicity and furore and the fact that procedures were allegedly established whereby children could no longer be taken from their parents on the say-so of one of the paediatricians named in the House, as recently as three days ago a family has been broken up in similar circumstances? I have spent almost two days on the telephone seeking to find out whether there was a second opinion that confirmed the diagnosis of Dr. Wyatt. I have been bluntly refused by everybody, and the children are in care. There was no corroborative evidence whatsoever that any person can get access to the single diagnosis and, as I understand it, it was not put to the magistrates. It is clearly in breach of the rules that were laid down for operation by the Northern regional health authority, where Dr. Donaldson bluntly instructed the director of social services that he would not give him the information, nor, if he found it, was he allowed to give it to me. The parents are distraught. The police were involved in finding

the children and rounding them up when the father absconded with them, but the police have not been brought in to see whether charges should he brought against that parent. In all these circumstances, the inquiry is welcome but urgency is still the order of the day.

Mr. Newton: I accept the need for urgency, and I hope that that was conveyed by my statement. As to the particular case that my hon. Friend has raised, he will understand that I would not wish to make some quick comment at the Dispatch Box on what he said. However, I understand that the position on first or second opinions and their availability is the normal one. They would be made available with the consent of the patient concerned or, in the case of a child, with the consent of the parents or guardians. It is not normal for medical opinions to be made available to third parties without that permission, and that is the position that would be maintained in this case.

Dr. John Marek: I welcome much of what the Minister has said, in particular the announcement of the inquiry. I am sure that that will find favour with both sides of the House. Has the Minister decided who the judge will be? If not, will he announce that as soon as possible? Will he give the House a guarantee that the assessors will be of sufficient integrity in their own professions to command the various opinions within the professions that are involved?
With regard to the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, is the Minister aware that should the Government introduce legislation as a result of that judgment they will have the co-operation of the Opposition? Even if it took them until Christmas to study that judgment, it would not be too late to introduce appropriate legislation early in the new year. Will the Minister guarantee that he will look at that carefully?
Why was I able to read about this statement in the afternoon press an hour before it was delivered in the House? Has the Minister any explanation?

Mr. Newton: I am certainly not in a position to explain the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I note the implicit concern that he has expressed.
As for his remarks about legislation, I cannot go beyond what I said earlier, but I am again grateful for the helpful spirit in which, I take it, the hon. Gentleman's remarks were intended.
With regard to the integrity of the assessors, I can certainly guarantee that our aim will be to find assessors who will command the sort of confidence that the hon. Gentleman wants. I have already indicated that we would hope to be in a position to announce the name of the judge within a week or so.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from what was said earlier. With respect, will you now give further thought to the question of points of order? As you know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wanted to raise a point of order and you explained that Front Benchers would be treated the same as Back Benchers. However, a situation arose that we believe merited valid points of order, but because of what happened they could not be taken. All those mainly involved have now left the Chamber—I do not criticise them, as I am sure they have many other commitments—including the Prime Minister. You will remember that in the last Parliament you made a distinction between points of order that arose from questions and other points of order. Will you bear that in mind and consider whether points arising from Question Time, particularly Prime Minister's Question Time, should be taken at the time they arise?
It might be argued that the situation has now been defused, but hon. Members may have strong points of view which for various reasons they cannot press because they are not here at the appropriate time. For example, as is normal on Thursdays, business questions follow Prime Minister's Question Time and there could well have been another statement in addition to the one that has just been made. For all these reasons, it is in the interests of the House and of hon. Members to ensure that if they wish to raise a point of order — especially if it arises from questions — it should be taken immediately after questions. That would have the advantage that those involved—be it an hon. Member wishing to criticise or wishing to obtain a ruling from you—would be present, especially as the Prime Minister is unlikely to be present for no more than five or 10 minutes after Prime Minister's Question Time has come to an end.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. What the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has just said might be an argument in favour of taking the point of order at the moment when the occasion for it arises, but in my considered opinion it cannot be an argument for having three different times for points of order—one when the event occurs, another after Question Time, and another at the normal time for points of order of which notice has been given.
That was the evil which your ruling dealt with very effectively, Sir. But if there is a balance of opinion that points of order should be taken during Question Time, the abuse might be self-correcting, because there is no doubt that there was abuse. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman rather let the cat out of the bag when he referred to "points of view". Points of order are not to do with points of view and should be tightly constrained, but they have become open to abuse.
The only alternative to the ruling that you gave, which I think met with general acceptance, would be to experiement with taking points of order at the moment when the occasion for them arose—the discipline being that the House would get very cross if they were unnecessarily used or expanded upon at the cost of questions that would not be reached in those circumstances.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that earlier this week I took the opportunity to advise you that I felt that we might run into the very difficulty that has arisen today as a result of the ruling give on 12 February. In fact, this is the second Thursday in succession, as you will appreciate, on which we have had just such a difficulty. Last week, in response to the only question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister dodged answering it by a complete mis-statement of the rules of this House when she said that she was not allowed to comment on sentences—a matter that you remedied later. But even you had to wait for an hour before you were able to put it right in your guidance on further points of order because of the business statement.
Today we had a triple abuse. We had a planted question on a matter that was not the responsibility of the Prime Minister—the very sort of question that you in the past have said that you are not willing to allow. That was then followed by what was clearly a carefully prepared and detailed statement from the Prime Minister on which she could not be questioned because she made it in the form of a supplementary answer. Rather poetically, she did so on the conduct of the security forces, a subject on which she had been singularly coy about making any statement at all in recent months on which she could be questioned. The third abuse was that the Prime Minister then chose to pontificate in her usual style on matters of privilege and procedure which have nothing to do with her but which are matters for you and the Committee that we have appointed to deal with these things.
As you will see from the clock, Mr. Speaker, it is now more than an hour and a half since that incident arose. Understandably, the Prime Minister has had to leave the Chamber, as has the Leader of the Opposition. We are now discussing the matter in a vacuum. We must therefore ask you to look at the way in which this ruling is operating. I well understand why you made it, and I understand that you wanted to avoid one set of abuses, but I put it to you that you have opened up the possibility of a further set of abuses, because we have a Prime Minister who consistently, repeatedly, and calculatingly abuses the procedures of this House when it suits her purposes. I therefore ask you to protect the House and to reconsider your ruling.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us and I should like to deal with this matter. I shall therefore call one more hon. Member from either side.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I would not want you to consider ruling on that point of order, Mr. Speaker, without our correcting a matter of fact. The Prime Minister's answer this afternoon actually invited the Leader of the Opposition to make his position on these matters clear and did not rule out further questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As I observed when you made your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it was a valiant try, but it was not likely to last permanently, for the very good reason that the House of Commons is subject to points of order at any time during the day. Indeed, this whole episode began when an hon. Member raised a point of order in the middle of a maiden speech, and he was able to do so because it is acceptable that a point of order can


be raised at any time, even in the middle of a maiden speech. Therefore, if a maiden speech can be subjected to a point of order, why on earth cannot we have points of order at times when the Prime Minister is still in the House, when the Leader of the Opposition is available to raise points of order and so on?
No one should crow about this, Mr. Speaker, because your ruling was an attempt to bunch points of order together rather than to have one set after questions and some later on. To some extent, the experiment has worked for a time, but there was bound to come an occasion when all these conflicting interests needed to be present so that the point of order could be properly examined and dealt with. On those occasions when the participants, including Back Benchers—not just the Front Benchers, incidentally—want to raise such a point of order, the ruling should be revised to enable them to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take one more point of order and then I shall rule on the matter.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Speaker, I hope that in weighing the matter you will take into consideration the fact that your ruling was tried with great success in the last Parliament. There are two reasons why I hope you will resist the suggestions made by Opposition Members. This is a blatant attempt to extend Question Time, the very thing that you have said you always wanted to avoid. Secondly, as we have seen in this case, your ruling provides a cooling-off period during which those hotheads who might have wanted to cause trouble earlier drift off to the Tea Room, so that only responsible and mature Members are left to raise relevant points of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the question of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) was an abuse. I did

not appreciate what the hon. Gentleman was seeking to do until too late, but it was an abuse and I shall have to reflect upon the matter.
However, I am reluctant—and I think the House will be reluctant—to return to the time when we had points of order arising out of questions because, as I said in my statement on 12 February, that is an open invitation for hon. Members to raise points of order. The House will recollect that in the early days of my Speakership—I inherited this practice—we started every day with point; of order. Since my ruling, that has not occurred. However, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is probably right — I shall reflect upon his suggestion carefully — that points of order should be raised immediately; we should apply the doctrine of the first occasion.
The House should know that I made my statement on 12 February after wide consultation and discussions with those likely to be involved, and I would wish to do so again before making any further changes.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for your clear rebuke of the activities of a Conservative Back Bencher. You were correct that, as with points of order, you cannot always tell until near the end of a question whether it is in order. However, by the time that the hon. Member for Suffolk. South (Mr. Yeo) had finished, you, Sir, were clearly aware that what he said was in breach of your ruling. Why then did you allow the Prime Minister to read from a written statement for a full minute on a question that was not permissible?

Mr. Speaker: I have just said — the right hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth—that I did not appreciate what was happening until the Prime Minister was on her feet. I have said that I will reflect on the matter, but I hope that the House will agree that one clear abuse should not lead to a change in our procedures which would lead to many other abuses on a daily basis.

Scottish Business

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay the normal business of the House. However, it has just been drawn to my attention that on the Order Paper today there is a selection which purports to be the Committee on the Local Government Bill. You will recall that, at the start of the Second Reading debate on that Bill, considerable anxiety was expressed about the fact that, although it was a United Kingdom Bill, it included provisions affecting the very essence of local government in Scotland. You will remember, Sir, that you listened for nearly half an hour to points being raised on that matter. Much justified anxiety was expressed about the difficulty for Scottish Members of dealing with the Scottish aspects of the matter when there was no Scottish Office Minister to answer the points.
I note with horror and very considerable anger that no Scottish Minister is to serve on the Local Government Bill Committee. I was told on Second Reading that in Committee we should have adequate opportunities to debate the Scottish aspects of the Bill and that there would be Scottish Office Ministers to answer our points. The Committee on the Local Government Bill is a large Committee, on which the Scottish National party will be represented and on which one of my Scottish Front-Bench colleagues and two or three Scottish Labour Back Benchers will serve. However, not only is there not a single Scottish Conservative Member on that Committee but—and this is more germane—there is not a single Scottish Office Minister.
On Second Reading, it became absolutely clear that Ministers from the Department of the Environment were not in a position to deal with detailed questions about Scotland. That was bad enough, but it is an outrage that there is to be no Scottish Office Minister on a Committee dealing with a fundamental and extremely controversial Bill which affects Scotland.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to agree with me that we must have protection on this, because it makes a mockery and a farce of the role of this House as a scrutinising body. I appeal for your help.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it to do with the same matter?

Mr. Marlow: Yes, Sir. As an English Member, can I say how fed up we are with Scottish Labour Members whingeing on and on about their lack of ability to debate matters in this House? As you know yourself, Mr. Speaker, when matters such as rate support grant are discussed in this House, there is as much time available for 70 Scottish Members as for 500 or more English Members to discuss the same matters.
As Opposition Members ought to know, there is a majority of Conservative English Members of more than 200 over Labour English Members. There are seven English Conservative Members for every three English Labour Members and they get one question for every one question that we get. If there is any degree of overrepresentation in this House, it is by Labour English Members against English Conservative Members and if

there is an imbalance of debate in this House, English Conservative Members have suffered a damned sight more than anybody else.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) obviously does not know what he is talking about.
I return to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). This issue is important not only in connection with the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill. It gives us an idea of the way in which the Government—if they are allowed to get away with it this time—intend to treat Scottish legislation in future. We know that the Government are in difficulties because of the small number of Conservative Back Benchers who represent Scottish constituencies and because some of those Back Benchers have said that they have no intention of serving permanently on Committees dealing with Scottish Bills. The fact is that the Scottish provisions in the Local Government Bill should in any case have been included in a separate Scottish Bill. We asked for that, but the Government resisted it and have introduced a United Kingdom Bill full of clauses applying to Scotland. It is as much a Scottish Bill as an English and a Welsh Bill and it is an outrage that on a Committee of 30 Members—it is not a small Committee—there is not a single Scottish Conservative Back Bencher and, even worse, there is no Scottish Minister to deal with Scottish points.
This matter goes well beyond normal questions of Committee selection. I hope that the Leader of the House will say something about this, because if the Government think that they can get away with it, they could not be more mistaken. We shall simply not put up with this kind of behaviour and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will do your part to protect the interests of Scottish Labour Members.

Mr. Speaker: I have the point.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose——

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the subsequent debates and some of them are maiden speakers? It would be in their interest and for the convenience of the House if I dealt with this matter.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The whole House knows that I do not make appointments to Standing Committees; that is a matter for the Select Committee of Selection. Any complaints about the nomination of Members should correctly be taken up with the Chairman of that Committee. I have no power to overrule the Select Committee's decisions or to take hon. Members off Committees or appoint to them. That is not my responsibility.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept what you are saying. However, this matter deeply affects the workings of the House, the standing of hon. Members and our credibility as a body that scrutinises legislation. The Leader of the House is with us. I know that he takes his duties to the whole House


seriously and I think that he will recognise that this is not, in any sense, a frivolous point and that we are not expressing fake indignation. We now feel very strongly about the matter. We have been snubbed dramatically in this matter and I hope that the Leader of the House will say something about it now.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): It is for the Government to determine which Ministers should lead on a Bill. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his ministerial colleagues will be able to deal with all matters raised in Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Dewar: No!

Mr. Wakeham: I must tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that under the Labour Government there were occasions when Standing Committees on Bills affecting Scotland had no Scottish Office Minister as a Member of the Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with matters that are not my responsibility.

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you can help me with a little technical information that I am sure will be within your knowledge. The selection is totally unsatisfactory. We can and will complain about it, but there is no question of the matter going unchallenged on the Floor of the House. How do we block the Committee and force a debate on an issue which is fundamental to our rights and to the conduct and working of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to advise the hon. Member on tactics. There are opportunities to raise these matters.

[Interruption.] Surely the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to make a judgment on matters for which I have no responsibility. It is a matter for the Committee of Selection, on which the Opposition are represented. Complaints about selection should be taken up with the Chairman and the Committee.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I promise to be brief. I appreciate that you have been put in a difficult situation which we do not want repeated. At the beginning of a new Session of Parliament, it is as well to have the matter clarified straight away. I appreciate that it cannot be done here and now, but, as the Leader of the House is present and has intervened, may I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that between now and the first sitting of the Standing Committee the Leader of the House will take the opportunity to have discussions through the usual channels so that we may consider how in the future we deal with issues that are clearly essentially Scottish issues but on which equally clearly there is inadequate Scottish representation at both ministerial and Conservative Back Bench levels. If the Leader of the House will give that undertaking, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be only too happy to allow businesss to continue now.

Mr. Wakeham: I am always happy to have discussions through the usual channels.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Building Societies Investor Protection Scheme (Maximum Protected Investment) Order he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Orders of the Day — British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who I understand will be leading for the Opposition. He did not shadow my previous Department but he hounded and persecuted me none the less regularly from the Back Benches. He was so successful in that and other ways that he has been elected to the shadow Cabinet. I am sure that we all agree that that is richly deserved and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success.
In a vein which I hope will arouse equally little controversy, I come to the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill. By tradition, Bills of this kind have become the occasion for a debate on the fortunes of the merchant shipbuilding industry. We all realise that the fortunes of the industry remain in a very difficult state. Once a major employer, the industry on the mainland now has fewer than 8,000 employees, most of whom work for British Shipbuilders. As we all know, and certainly as I know, behind that stark figure of the reduced number of employees lies a history of hardship, difficulty and unemployment for many thousands of people in great industrial centres in this country.
The adjustment in the scale of the industry has not been for lack of support from the Government and the taxpayer. Since 1979, British Shipbuilders alone has received more than £1¾ billion. That is an enormous figure. The root cause of the continued problems for British shipbuilding has been a world market dominated since the first major oil price increase in 1973 by massive excess capacity in shipping and shipbuilding alike. The two industries are linked. The merchant shipping industry—the customer of the shipbuilding industry — has been through a terribly difficult time. Great tonnages are laid up throughout the world. Shipping rates are generally depressed and returns on capital are very low. When the customer is in trouble, the industry which supplies the customer with essential equipment — in this case, the shipbuilding industry—gets into deep trouble as well.
By 1976, when the need to restructure had really hit home in the older shipbuilding countries, about 230,000 people worked in merchant yards in the European Community and 175,000 were employed in Japan. Since then, the European Community work force has fallen to below 100,000 and the Japanese work force to about 90,000. In January this year I visited the great Mitsubishi yard in Nagasaki where the Japanese imperial fleet was built before the war. The yard is short of work and shedding labour rapidly. Some of the managers who showed me around explained that they were unable to win orders and could not compete with the Koreans. The problem of change has gone on throughout the world. As we consider the stark international position, therefore, I

hope that we shall not hear too much today from hon. Members pressing the case for their own industries and seeking to attribute the changes of the past 10 years to the Government's policies, our economic line, Thatcherism or anything else. The problem is a world-wide phenomenon with very obvious causes — the excess capacity of shipping and the resulting excess capacity of shipbuilding.
The past 18 months in particular have seen dramatic restructuring of the shipbuilding industry in a number of countries. We certainly have not been alone. France began 1986 with five yards and is now reduced to one. Sweden effectively abandoned merchant shipbuilding altogether and a number of West German shipyards went into liquidation.The Japanese announced a programme to cut capacity by 20 per cent. but look like ending it with capacity cuts and jobs losses nearer 40 per cent. Even the South Korean yards are under pressure.

[Miss Betty Boothroyd took the Chair.]

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Clarke: Madam Deputy Speaker, I had thought that the cheers were for the difficulties in South Korea, which would be understandable in view of the constituency difficulties of many hon. Members present. I am glad to see, however, that they were for your taking the big Chair for the first time. It is a pleasure to welcome you there. You and I will recall taking part in debates chaired by your distinguished predecessor, Betty Harvie Anderson. There has been too long a gap since a woman took the Chair as Deputy Speaker. We are pleased to see you there and we look forward to your presiding over our affairs with great distinction.
As I was saying, even the South Korean shipyards are under pressure. All are looking to reduce their dependence on new merchant building and are diversifying into other engineering activities. Despite the difficulties of all the existing shipyards, however, newcomers such as the Chinese and the Yugoslays are actually building new shipyards and increasing their shipbuilding capacity.
The international situation of more than 10 years, of depression both at home and overseas, will be familiar to those who follow the fortunes of the industry. I have set out the position again today because those of us in the House, including just about every hon. Member now in the Chamber, who are concerned with the prospects for the communities, towns and cities of Britain which were once dependent on shipbuilding for their industrial life, have a duty to face those international facts of life. The present world position is that there is capacity to build 18 million tonnes of new merchant ships each year. Last year, however, new orders totalled only 9 million tonnes, of which the Japanese took 41 per cent., the Koreans 14 per cent. and the European Community 15 per cent. and of which our share was 2 per cent. The latest forecasts from the Association of West European Shipbuilders and the Shipbuilders Association of Japan accept that there is no prospect of an upturn in market demand until 1990 at the earliest. Even if that upturn were to start—many are not certain that it will begin even then—even optimists do not predict a balance between supply and demand until the mid-1990s at the earliest.
That leads me to my first conclusion. When we consider the problems of people in the communities worst affected by the situation in the shipbuilding industry, we shall clearly have to look much wider than shipbuilding itself as


we tackle the problems of towns in Scotland and the northeast in particular. The expansion of an enterprise economy on Clydeside, Tyneside and Teesside must be a key objective of all our policies. But if I start going into that, I shall go wider than today's debate on the Bill.
British Shipbuilders is a corporation that has had to adjust. Orders are still, and will remain, hard to win. Inevitably, the profound imbalance of the market has had particularly severe consequences for British Shipbuilders' finances.
The Bill concerns British Shipbuilders' borrowing limit. The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 places a statutory ceiling on the funds that British Shipbuilders may acquire in the form of public dividend capital from the Government and loans from the commercial market. The limit on the corporation's borrowing stands at £1·4 billion as a result of the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order, debated in the House as recently as December last year. The Bill proposes an increase in the borrowing limit to £1·55 billion and makes provision for further increases, subject to affirmative resolution of the House, up to £1·8 billion.
The Bill does not vote money. It simply gives British Shipbuilders the power that it requires to receive moneys. The actual provision of funds in the form of public dividend capital is, of course, a matter for Parliament to decide in due course through the normal Estimates procedures. The borrowing limit has no effect on the other important source of Government support for British Shipbuilders—intervention fund in support of particular orders.
Many hon. Members will recall that it was only this time last year that my hon. Friend the then Minister of State — the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison)—spoke at the Dispatch Box in favour of an increase in the borrowing limit from £1·2 billion to £1·3 billion. As I said, the order agreeing an increase of a further £100 million was made in December last year. In veiw of the frequency of debate, obviously reflecting the frequency of the expansion of financial demands by British Shipbuilders, the House deserves an explanation as to why a further increase is needed now. That increase is urgently needed. The corporation forecasts that it will come close to exceeding its present limit before the summer recess. I hope that no one contemplates delaying the Bill, because that could have a profound consequence for the corporation. An amount of £200 million is a considerable sum for a business of this size to exhaust in little more than a year.

Mr. Frank Field: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is right that the House should know what is happening to taxpayers' money. Will he take the argument back a little? I think that, two borrowing requirement Bills ago, we raised the sum from £1 billion to £1·2 billion. The £200 million was largely for Barrow to build a construction hall. Since we voted that money, Barrow and Cammell Laird have been privatised for a considerably lower sum, although all their assets were privatised. What happened to that taxpayers' money? I ask that question because we are so concerned about the growth announced in this Bill.

Mr. Clarke: The privatisation was debated at the time and I believe that the hon. Gentleman was given explanations as to why the price was set as it was. Several

privatisations have obviously involved getting the current market value of the assets. Sometimes offsetting expenditure has to be made to discharge losses on work in progress, and so on, so those costs were not counted at Barrow.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is labouring under a fundamental misconception. The fact that one has to pour money into an institution does not make it more valuable. If one is privatising a company, it has a market value based on the prospect of returns to the purchaser. To compare whatever extra borrowing may be required when an industry was nationalised with the price realised on the taxpayer's behalf when the asset is eventually sold is a false analogy. Many loss-making nationalised industries have consumed vast amounts of taxpayers' money. It is only too true that eventually, when the industry has been sold, although the market price may have been obtained, the taxpayer has to wipe off a lot of money expended for past folly.

Mr. Frank Field: I am not trying to trap the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will have seen from BSEL's returns that it was not a loss-making concern, but a profitable concern, which was to be privatised. I suggest that £200 million of taxpayers' money was not just poured into a bankrupt industry. It was poured into the building of a construction hall at Barrow, which is building Trident. Far from the Government presenting the case as one of taxpayers' money being wasted, should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman be saying, as part of his conversation with the House, that that money should be put to the cost of building Trident? The money has not been lost to taxpayers. It has been a real cost. From the way the accounts are being presented now and the way they have been presented, one could be forgiven for thinking that taxpayers make contributions and the whole contribution is then forgotten. It should he attributed to the right accounts.

Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about how the cost of Trident is calculated for the purpose of defence debates, he must make his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the next time Trident's cost is regarded as an issue. If he is asking whether the correct market value was placed on Vickers when it was privatised, I must say that I understand that it was correctly valued. We are now dealing with the £200 million incurred over the past year. Although the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to intervene, I think that it is right for me to explain what on this occasion has caused us to come back with an increase of £200 million on the borrowing limit agreed only 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman will have to make his point in defence debates if he is trying to add his estimate of the cost of Trident.

Mr. John Smith: This is a trade and industry matter.

Mr. Clarke: If the Opposition say that this is an industry matter, the hon. Member for Birkenhead will have to deal with that difficulty when it presents itself. I think that I am being patient in conceding that it has anything to do with the Bill. It does not. I should like to come to this year's £200 million and to why we are considering it again within 12 months.
Of the £200 million, only some £20 million has been absorbed in what one might call the normal costs of the


business-capital investment and such essential charges as research and development, marketing and general administration. Last year's restructuring cost some £30 million, a direct result of the shortage of orders. Another £30 million or so was needed in final settlement of the sale of Scott Lithgow to Trafalgar House, principally representing compensation for losses on work in progress which British Shipbuilders agreed as a condition of sale necessary to secure the future of that yard.
Another £40 million of the £200 million has arisen because of the receivership of one of British Shipbuilders' major customers—International Transport Management. ITM had ordered, but barely begun to pay for, a major craneship when the receiver had to be called in. This was no fault of British Shipbuilders, but it reflects the predicament of a customer whose operations had been considerably affected by the recent fall in the price of oil.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the additional payments in respect of Scott Lithgow. Can he tell us how much in total has been paid out in respect of Scott Lithgow's transfer to the private sector?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot do so on the spur of the moment, but no doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—will be able to answer that point if he catches your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. Off the cuff, I cannot say how much has so far been paid out.

Mr. Gordon Brown: How, much of the money has been spent in funding employment instead of funding unemployment? In particular, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how much is involved in new investment in the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Clarke: All this is essential for employment. I am describing a huge extension in the borrowing by British Shipbuilders to keep the corporation in existence and to ensure that it can continue to trade and to protect the jobs of the 8,000 employees in the industry. When we are dealing with a problem of surplus capacity, a lack of orders and customers who place orders and then get into financial difficulties, the idea that I should be asked to describe what we are doing to invest in new capacity misses the point. It is part of the tragedy of British Shipbuilders that the position is so bad at the moment that money is being drawn in the kind of provision that I was describing.
I had reached the stage of describing the provision that has to be made when orders are placed by customers who get into financial difficulty. Such is the state of the shipbuilding industry and the problems of shipping companies that builders have had to become involved in their customers' problems and provide sufficient security for finance of new purchases. When it gives guarantees for the finance required to buy the ships that will be built, in the present market British Shipbuilders face a high risk of those guarantees being called in or of becoming involved directly in the financial reconstruction of shipping companies to avoid the full impact of such guarantees being called. Therefore, shipbuilders are required to shoulder part of their customers' risk and to prop up their customers to make sales.
In addition to the ITM illustration that I gave earlier, a further £20 million has been the result of other customer

difficulties. A further £30 million represents the cost of labour and overheads that cannot be attributed to contracts over the past year. Because of the nature of their business, eligible merchant shipyards must bear the costs of spare capacity if they do not have profitable work in addition to that taken on a break-even basis with intervention fund help. During the past year, delays in winning orders, notably the delays that took place before we had great success in winning the China order at Govan, have swelled those costs considerably in the case of British Shipbuilders.
However, in addition to all those factors which affect the state of the market, and which are largely beyond the control of British Shipbuilders, the largest single element of the increase—£50 million, or a full quarter of the capacity to borrow that was agreed by this House last year—has been lost on contracts that are in progress in the yards. That is in addition to the subsidies that were required to win the orders in the first place. When a contract has been entered into and a great deal of subsidy given to win it, losses are being made of the order of £50 million in a single year. That figure is a stark reminder of the total cost involved in supporting this industry.
I know of few other industries in which losses on contracts amount to almost half of the turnover before intervention fund support. While Govan and the smaller yards have been far from immune — they have made their contribution to the losses—the greater part of the losses have been made at North-East Shipbuilders' Sunderland yards. That performance must improve against the background of the dire market conditions that I have described.
Undoubtedly, the most unsatisfactory aspect of British Shipbuilders' performance has been those contract losses. I must concede that, even in that case, the fault can be laid only partly at the door of the building yards. In a buyer's market for ships, in which most builders are in desperate straits, suppliers have been able to secure terms that leave the builders exposed to a considerable share of the risks of delayed delivery, unsatisfactory performance, and the costs of rectification. I am glad to say that British Shipbuilders is making great efforts to redress that imbalance. However, it is obvious that British Shipbuilders' performance during the past year has, to say the least, considerable scope for further improvement. I trust that every hon. Member who takes an interest in shipbuilding will join in wishing to see that improvement made. Their constituents must certainly understand how crucial it is to improve the performance of the yards.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East trailed his speech a moment ago by suggesting, in describing that great extension of borrowing and explaining where the money has gone, that I did not say enough about what was being done to sustain employment. I reject that just as earlier I rejected strongly the idea that it is nonsense to suggest that the present state of shipbuilding is in any way closely related to the policies of the Government. It is also absolute nonsense to suggest that the Government have not gone to enormous lengths to try to maintain the future of the surviving yards and to keep their employment in existence. We have expended great sums of taxpayers' money to support the corporation's efforts to find work for its yards.
I trust that Ministers agree with those many hon. Members who are present, whose constituents work in the industry, that we are all relieved to know that the


corporation has secured work, in a difficult market, which will take all its yards beyond this year and, in the case of the two major yards, well into 1989. The key orders for the 25 Danish ferries at North-East Shipbuilders and for the two, but we hope three, Chinese container ships at Govan were won with the assistance of a great deal of Government subsidy, using taxpayers' money. In the case of the Chinese order, advantage was taken of the soft loan provision that the Government are providing for trade with the Republic of China. We won those orders in the previous 12 months and the Government have put a great deal of taxpayers' money into helping those yards to try to get through their difficulties and to achieve further orders.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it not a matter for serious regret that the closing date for the tenders for the contracts for the construction of the replacement vessel for the St. Helena service has been put back, this time by three weeks?

Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, the final date for the tenders has been put back because certain British yards that wish to tender require more time because their suppliers require more time to give the necessary details, and the holiday season is upon them. However, I hope that the St. Helena Government will be in a position to consider those tenders and will place an order later in the year. Obviously, we all hope that that date will not be too far away. The St. Helena order is one of the prospects in sight that we hope will give at least some assistance to one of those yards.
Looking ahead, the corporation now has a new chairman, Mr. John Lister. I have had the advantage of meeting him twice in the past few days.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Before the Minister leaves the subject of intervention funding, it would be right if he told the House about the Government's attitude to intervention funding for merchant work in the privatised warship yards. The Government are encouraging British Shipbuilders to reject merchant work, partly because they have run the industry down to such an extent that it cannot undertake such work, and partly for other and more suspect reasons. Do the Government intend to deprive the privatised yards of such work as well?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring when he says that we are telling British Shipbuilders to reject merchant work. I thought that the position of naval yards was well known, but I realise that it is not acceptable to everybody. The naval yards were privatised on the clear understanding that they would not receive intervention fund support for merchant orders. There are good reasons for that.
The problem that I described in the earlier part of my speech is that we have an excess capacity of shipbuilders for conceivable merchant orders. It does nobody any good, given that we expend large amounts of intervention fund money, to keep the merchant yards in the hunt for those merchant orders that exist. If we suddenly greatly expand potential capacity by giving intervention fund support to the naval yards to go for merchant shipping orders, the result would be that potential capacity would greatly increase but the market would remain the same.

That would damage some of the merchant yards to which we have been giving a great deal of intervention fund support in recent years.
I have considered that policy because two hon. Members representing Aberdeen constituencies have already been to see me to press the case on behalf of Hall Russell. However, I can see no ground for changing the policy or for going back on the clear understanding that was made at the time of privatisation that intervention fund support would not be available to naval yards.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister is being disingenuous. The understanding on privatisation was not as clear-cut as he has said. If the Minister means that work which the Government will not allow British Shipbuilders to do will not be undertaken by privatised yards because the Government will not put intervention funding into those privatised yards after British Shipbuilders has said that it cannot do the work, is he saying that an entire segment of the industry will be lost to our country for good, and that our European or far eastern competitors will have a slice of the market to themselves, or he is saying that the Government will no longer support a section of the industry in this country?

Mr. Clarke: I continue to be mystified by the hon. Gentleman's reference to work that we shall not allow British Shipbuilders to undertake in merchant yards. We make British Shipbuilders work within a contract support limit that it has not yet reached. Obviously, we are interested, but we are constrained by the EEC rule on the amount of intervention fund support that we can offer to British Shipbuilders. I am afraid that I remain mystified by the case that the hon. Gentleman appears to have in mind about an order that British Shipbuilders has been told not to take and that has been driven to the far east because the naval yards cannot take it.
I repeat that it is quite clear, and known to the owners of the privatised naval yards, that intervention support is not available for merchant orders. It is common sense for us to insist on that and it is consistent with the policy that this House has supported for some years of giving intervention fund support to the merchant yards that are still having all the difficulties that I have described. The merchant yards at Govan, and North-East Shipbuilders, would he horrified to discover that we are suddenly opening up intervention fund support to allow a lot of naval yards to try to get into their merchant markets. I am not persuaded of the case for doing that.
I have already met John Lister twice during the past few days, and I know how determined he is to improve the performance of British Shipbuilders and to sustain the efforts of the corporation to create new market opportunities. He has promised a new corporate plan in the early autumn setting out the corporation's view of the way ahead. I await that with impatience and I shall consider it with care. Meanwhile, as a result of the Bill. Mr. Lister will know that we propose that he should have the headroom within which the business can survive and be financed. To give added reassurance to hon. Members with shipbuilding interests, I can tell the House that I have agreed that the British Shipbuilders external finance limit for 1987–88 will be £118 million.
The external finance limit is the limit on cash, either in the form of borrowing or intervention fund support, within which the corporation must try to operate this year.


I trust that the House will appreciate that £118 million is a considerable figure. It is a very substantial increase over the existing provision, and I am satisfied that it is a necessary increase. It represents nearly £20,000 for each employee of the corporation over the year. I hope that we shall not continue to hear from the Opposition that the Government are not doing enough to support the industry and the employees of British Shipbuilders. But it must be obvious to everyone of common sense that all the figures that I have mentioned are far too high. The corporation must reduce its costs and continue to improve its performance.
Merchant shipbuilding continues to face unprecedented market difficulty. The Government have always accepted that the industry needs substantial support if it is to have any chance of survival. The new external finance limit signals the limit on cash within which the corporation must try to operate this year. But its continued operation beyond the end of this month depends upon an increase in its limit on borrowing, as provided by the Bill. Its continued survival depends, above all, on its ability to continue to win orders in a crowded market and to improve its performance and justify the huge finance which the Government and taxpayer are putting forward.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Gordon Brown: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on taking up your duties in the House. It gives us special pleasure, not just because of the personal qualities that you bring to the job, but because you are the first woman Deputy Speaker from the Labour party. We look forward to working under your chairmanship in our debates.
I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his first debate on shipbuilding. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the new shipbuilding Minister, who will reply to the debate. During the past four years we have had four Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, who are responsible for shipbuilding, yet we have had three shipbuilding Ministers during the past nine months. I hope that the new Minister will not take it amiss if I recall that the maiden speech of the previous shipbuilding Minister in December last year turned out to be his valedictory address on the issue. If we had had as many new orders as we have had new shipbuilding Ministers, the industry would have been in a much better position.
As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, this is more than a debate about the technicalities of the Bill; it has become a debate about the general state of shipbuilding. The main point that we wish to make is that Britain used to have 25 per cent. of world orders, but now it has only about 2 per cent. The privatisation of many yards has led to rationalisation and, in some cases, the elimination of shipbuilding in our communities. Half of the yards that have closed in Europe during the past 10 years have closed in Britain, and half of the merchant shipbuilding jobs that have gone have gone in Britain. Therefore, we need more than just a new British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill; we need new measures to protect and to advance shipbuilding, and a

new commitment to winning orders for the rest of the 1980s that will bring new hope to our shipbuilding communities.
This summer is the 10th anniversary of the creation of British Shipbuilders. During those years, 70 yards and facilities have become only seven and a work force of 80,000 has become one of fewer than 6,000, and, despite what the Minister says about what is happening elsewhere, Britain more than any other European country or any of our international competitors in the far east has suffered the lion's share of job losses in merchant shipbuilding. Other European Community countries have suffered losses of 30, 40 and 50 per cent., but during the past eight years we have suffered losses of 300 per cent. in our shipbuilding work force. The Minster must answer this question: why does Britain—a merchant shipbuilding and trading nation—with most to gain do least while other countries with least to gain do most to protect their industry?
During the past few months, we have seen the end of engine building at Clark Kincaid at Wallsend and the closure of Smith's Dock. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) will wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to mention her fears about her area. Despite the success of North-East Shipbuilders in winning the order from Denmark and the success of Govan in winning the Chinese orders, those yards will still be running at about 70 per cent. capacity as a result of the redundancies in April this year.
There should be no further cuts in capacity in the industry and no further job losses. The Government should take the necessary action to sustain merchant shipbuilding, not least because about two years ago the former shipbuilding Minister, now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said
British Shipbuilders now employs less than 12,000 people in merchant shipbuilding and engine building—that if it declines much further it will simply disappear. The road runs out.
During those two years, the work force has halved. If the Minister does not take action to protect the industry, Britain will be without a merchant shipbuilding industry worthy of its name.
Will the shipbuilding Minister tell us what is happening about the orders in the several areas in which British Shipbuilders is competing for business? The Cuban order could bring new jobs and opportunities, especially to North-East Shipbuilders. What has happened to the additional Danish orders for which North-East Shipbuilders is looking to sustain jobs in the area? What resources will be made available to pursue Govan's aim to re-enter the cruise ship market? At least four new orders will be placed later this year. Remembering that the QE2 was refitted abroad—something that should not have been allowed to happen—may I ask what action the Minister will take to ensure that when the Cunard orders are up for tender British yards are put in a position where they can win the orders?
What is likely to happen with regard to public sector orders? In an answer that I received this week the Minister said that, apart from the Cal-Mac order and the St. Helena ship, there are only two sets of public sector orders that are likely to be placed in 1987 and 1988. We would be grateful to know the dates when those orders are likely to be placed. I think the Minister has a responsibility to trawl


through the Government Departments to look at whether public sector orders in other areas can be advanced to sustain the capacity that is in the industry at the moment.
Will the Minister also refer to the St. Helena supply ship order? He may recall that it was in the debate last May that the decision to order the St. Helena ship, after many years of discussion, was announced. It is now more than a year since that announcement was made. We understand that the order is out to tender, but when will a decision be made that will enable at least one yard to benefit in jobs from that order, which should have been placed some time ago?
What can the Minister do to ensure that British ship owners buy British and that, as we have suggested, a task force is set up within his Department to scour the world for available orders? Will the Minister tell us something about the Government's protest to the European Commission about the Brittany Ferries order? Given that the original complaint was made by the Government to the Commission in January and given the recent statement by the Competition Commissioner that a decision was about to be made and a report issued, has the Minister been notified of the Commission's decision? If so, what action does he expect to come from what is the first case under the sixth directive and what action will he now take to ensure that, just as the French take the action that they feel is necessary, we in Britain will take the action that is necessary to ensure that British ship owners buy British, repair British and fly the British flag?
If the Japanese can say that as long as there is an ocean to sail they will build ships to sail on it, if the French can take the view that they will take what action is necessary to protect their shipbuilding industry, and if the Germans, as they did a few months ago, can make money available from their defence and regional aid budgets to ensure that orders were made available to their own shipyards, Britain, the biggest island trading nation in Europe, a nation that lives or dies according to its sea-going trade—90 per cent. of our imports and 90 per cent. of our exports go by sea — should take the action that is necessary to ensure that existing yards are saved, that there is a full order book for them and that our shipbuilding skills and communities are kept in being and not put in jeopardy. I hope that the Minister will provide the money that is necessary to sustain in this country a vibrant merchant shipbuilding industry.

Miss Emma Nicholson: It is a great privilege for me to make my maiden speech. As the Member for Torridge and Devon, West I have set myself the welcome task of serving my constituency better than any Member before me. That is a hard task to fulfil — some might say impossible, some might say impertinent — as I follow that much-loved former Member of Parliament, Sir Peter Mills. Peter was a rare Member of Parliament in that he was as much admired and respected in the House as in his constituency. Many hon. Members excel in their constituencies. Many dedicated Members of Parliament work all the hours that they can to look after their constituents, and earn honour and renown locally. Many other Members of Parliament shine brightly in the Westminster firmament. It is unusual to find a Member of Parliament as much admired and respected both in his constituency and in the House. Peter Mills was such a Member.
Peter Mills was an independent thinker. Although he was a loyal supporter of the Government, he did not shrink from disagreeing with the Government when his integrity demanded it. For example, he did not support the dairy inspection charge and, at the risk of incurring the House's displeasure in a future debate, may I say that he did not support the uplifting of the secretarial allowance for Members of Parliament. At the core of his work was his strong Christian faith, which I suggest helped him to overcome his recent illness, coupled with the excellence of the surgery and the nursing care that he received in Devon from the NHS and the strong support of his loyal wife, herself a former nurse. He has now entered a welcome retirement, when he will be farming.
In Peter Mills' footsteps I am proud to represent a truly magnificent constituency, where the beauty of the countryside is excelled only by the outstanding people who live there. We encompass much of Dartmoor, our great national park. Surely the term "an area of outstanding natural beauty" must have been coined by someone while standing on Dartmoor. Preservation and conservation of those areas for visitors and residents to enjoy, and for wildlife to flourish in, is close to my heart. However, visitors bring traffic, and we have heavy transport locally. I welcome with relief the Okehampton bypass which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will open on Thursday next. It will bring income generation, not just to my constituency but to constituencies in Cornwall. For that reason, I will be urgently pressing for the widening of the next stage of the A30 leading to Cornwall, lest we create more vast bottlenecks to thwart our tourists and our local trade.
The impact of road development on the surrounding countryside was much discussed in the House and the other place in the debates on the Okehampton bypass. Farmers care for 70 per cent. of our countryside and, in my constituency, rural prosperity depends on the successful continuance of the small family farm. Spending money in market towns, the relative success of small businesses and large industries, and trade in pubs and restaurants all rest on profits generated by the farmer.
If we want to continue the pattern of country life that we love to see and, as holidaymakers, to visit and to enjoy, we have to help the small farmer in an era of over-production while he diversifies. Aside from tourism development—a crucial leisure industry—we have a famous rural arts community, the Beaford Centre. Last year the centre celebrated its 21st birthday. There, not to cut the cake but to unveil a tapestry woven for the occasion, was my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. Perhaps his great thoughts on the use of Government funding for the arts as the fly trap to attract the spider of much greater private funding started there. The centre has some public funding, but it was begun by private foundation money. Through the very excellence of its work, it attracts the outside finance that it deserves. I strongly support the Minister's new move.
One would expect to find the arts, farming in beautiful countryside, tourism and a high retirement population in the south-west. What one would not expect to find—and the reason I speak in the debate—is shipbuilding. Appledore is no large yard. With 550 employees, it is a small yard both by world standards and when compared with other British Shipbuilders yards. In common with other British Shipbuilders yards, redundancies occurred last May. But—and I spoke with the managing director


yesterday—no more redundancies are planned. Of the 95 people made redundant, British Shipbuilders (Enterprise) Ltd. interviewed each one with positive results: 49 have now found employment; 19 have been on or are undertaking special retraining courses; 19 have started their own businesses; and eight are being assessed now for special help. I welcome the funding provided by the Government for British Shipbuilders (Enterprise) Ltd.
Appledore may be small, but it is now stable. As a large employer in a seafaring place, it is a vital part of our community's prosperity. I welcome Appledore's successful move back into the dredger market. Dredgers have been built well and on time, and the order book is full until year end. We must give equal credit to management and the work force, as well as to the Government for their support.
Price is of prime importance in securing orders, particularly with cheaper labour forces overseas. This is where the intervention fund comes in. However, high quality work and perfect timing matter just as much and that is why Appledore has secured orders for three ships over the past two years from just one owner, ARC Marine Ltd. I am confident that Appledore's reputation will place the yard in front when competing for further orders in the coming years.
I am particularly proud that Appledore is developing Questor, the new general purpose research vessel. That should further strengthen the yard when it finds a market. The move by British Shipbuilders into the more complex sectors of the market shows, once again, the technical achievements of our yards. I suggest that that rests upon British Shipbuilders' achievements in the new technology, particularly computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture.
I will be seeking strongly the restoration of assisted area status that my constituency so badly needs. New software would open the door to far swifter development than we can achieve without European Community funds. In Appledore, as in other British Shipbuilders' yards, we have outstanding hardware and software, designing our ships with line drawings on screen in depth. What happens then? All of that complexity produces a punched paper tape that is carried downstairs by hand and fed into the computer-aided manufacturing mechanism and the cutting begins. That is archaic in computer terms. My industrial background lies in computers. I trained with ICI. The link between screen and cutting should be electronic, not manual.
More funding is needed for software development, funding that could come from Europe. Why allow our shipbuilders to be held back? Assisted area status holds no shame. It is a just recognition that some historic industries—shipbuilding is as old as man—cannot survive by market force alone and justify the taxpayers' suppport. That does not detract from our philosophy, which I most heartily share, that the free market is the fairest mechanism for the regulation of supply and demand and is the only mechanism that endures.
However, intervention is needed where our society wants production to continue against the market force, to boost the old and to come into the era of our sunrise industries. The building of ships and the continuance of the small family firm fall within that pattern. Intervention creates a partnership between the private and the public

investor and between private enterprise and the state. The state should be able to take a dwindling role as private enterprise flourishes and grows.
I welcome the continuance of development aid, which Appledore Ferguson Shipbuilding Ltd needs now for two tenders out to the developing countries.
I support most strongly the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill. It is a crucial measure which will support our yards into the 1990s' upturn of demand.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Devon, West and Torridge (Miss Nicholson) on an excellent maiden speech. She made a convincing case for public spending and I hope that her obvious analytical and intellectual skills are not totally wasted on the Conservative Benches. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those of others and say how pleased we are to see you in your new role?
I would like to pay tribute to the previous Member for Redcar, Mr. James Tinn. Jim Tinn is a quiet man, well respected in the House and the constituency for the work that he has put in over 23 years representing the people of Redcar. I wish him well in his retirement. I would like to pay tribute to another Member from Teesside, Ellen Wilkinson. She made her maiden speech over 60 years ago, when she was the only woman on the Opposition Benches. She spoke powerfully about the problems of women in low-paid jobs, about the inequalities in widows' benefits and about the difficulties of the long-term unemployed. We are fortunate now to have 21 Labour women on the Opposition Benches but, sadly, many of the issues that Ellen fought for are still high on the political agenda today. Above all, she was a practical woman who liked to see things done. She liked to get results and I feel that I will have deserved the votes and support of the people in Redcar if I can work with the same energy and commitment as she did.
This debate, the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill earlier in the week and the Gracious Speech have a common theme—the theme of division. There is the division between British shipworkers and those in Korea, the division between the north and south, the division of inequality and even the division between central and local government. However, there is another division which is in some ways greater than those I have mentioned—the division between fantasy and reality. There is the fantasy of the Government who believe that they understand the problems of this country and know the solutions to them and then there is the reality—the day-to-day reality that working people have to live with.
The Government seem impelled by their own fantasy. They do not try to understand the real world. Nowhere are Government fantasies made more clear than in the legislation that they have proposed so far in this Parliament. I have always thought that censorship is a difficult and a complex issue but, having read the obscene fantasies in the Government's legislation, I am beginning to change my mind.
I shall begin with the Minister's fantasy this afternoon. He said that the problems faced by British shipbuilding in the past 10 years had nothing to do with the Government's policies since 1979. He suggested that we should face the facts of the world market. The reality, as the people in my constituency know, is that if there had been intervention


funds and if there had been British orders for British firms, the position of Smith's Dock would have been thoroughly different. Last year, 1,300 people were made jobless when Smith's Dock closed. The dock was efficient even by the present Government's standards. It was efficient in that it had a superior computer-aided design and manufacture system. It was efficient in that it had the latest modular construction techniques in addition to the best labour relations in the past 20 years of many of the shipyards in Britain. The saddest thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (M r. Brown) mentioned, is that there was the possibility that multiple cargo ship carriers from Cuba would be placed at the dock, but the closure made that impossible.
The saddest task that I face in my job as the hon. Member for Redcar is dealing with Smith's Dock park. That is the only piece of British Shipbuilders land left in the area. It consists of four football pitches and two cricket pitches that we are desperately fighting to keep in the constituency so that the ex-dockers living in Southbank, Grangetown and Dormanstown have something to do in their leisure time, along with the other 22·5 per cent. of people on Teesside who do not have a job to go to.
The picture of what the closure of Smith's Dock has done is made worse by what has happened to manufacturing investment in the area in the past 10 years. On Teesside, 32,200 jobs have been lost. A total of 9,000 or so of those were in oil and chemicals, 17,900 were in metal, primarily steel, and 6,000 were in shipbuilding. That picture is not complete, because one has to add the jobs that have been lost in the past eight years in construction, which amounts to a further 10,600.
People should sit and think about that. A total of 42,000 jobs in Teesside have been lost in the past 10 years, and that is without going into the detail of the skill base that has been disappearing, the lack of training opportunities for young people and the impact that that has had on the secondary economy, be it shops or small businesses. That is the reality of what has happened in Redcar in the past 10 years.

Mr. Michael Fallon: indicated dissent.

Miss Mowlam: The hon. Member may shake his head, but that is a small indication of his inability to understand the real world. If we are going to reinvest, repair the economy and increase the manufacturing base, we have to work with the public sector, the private sector and local government. That investment must exist in an environment that is both flexible and stable. I am sure that is what we all want and I hope that the next two years will bring that flexibility and stability.
Another Government fantasy concerns local authorities. In the Bill that we discussed on Tuesday, we were offered the fantasy that competitive tendering will in some way increase the efficiency of services in refuse and cleaning. In reality, the people of Redcar who receive or work in those services know that that change will mean more part-time, short-term, temporary sub-contracting. Services will become less efficient in the process.
Another Government fantasy concerns their proposed legislation on industrial relations. The Government have the illusion that, by introducing such legislation, they will increase democracy in the trade union movement and increase choice in industry. The reality, as the people of British Steel and ICI Wilton know — even the

Confederation of British Industry acknowledges it—is that that legislation will not increase democracy. That legislation states that people can have a ballot — they can all vote, that is fine — but the Government can ignore the decision they reach. That is disfranchising people and taking away democracy. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said that the Scottish people would fight hard to keep Ravenscraig open after August 1988, the deadline that the Prime Minister mentioned at Question Time today. We on Teesside will fight alongside the people of British Steel at Ravenscraig. We certainly will not have one plant played off against another.
If any hon. Members intend to go to the races at Redcar this weekend, the only odds-on bet that they will be able to place is that, whether people work in the public sector or receive those services, the next four years will be horrendous. I hope that the Government realise that fantasies are for private indulgence and not public policy.

Mr. Michael Fallon: It is a pleasant duty to be able to congratulate the two previous speakers on their maiden speeches. I do so with some sense of depression, because the more we hear speeches of such polish and self-confidence, the more we reflect on our own inadequate efforts some years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke with eloquence and clarity, combining deep local knowledge with the subject of our debate. I believe that my hon. Friend has set herself a formidable task in seeking to follow Sir Peter Mills. However, having heard her today, we are in no doubt that she will succeed in that task.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) spoke with equal eloquence, but perhaps with even greater passion and urgency, about the problems of Teesside, and of Smith's Dock in particular. We admire her commitment. In the north-east we need such commitment if we are to promote wider understanding in this House of the deep-rooted problems that we face in the region. The hon. Member for Redcar has also set herself a formidable task in seeking to emulate Ellen Wilkinson. That will be some task, but if the hon. Member speaks on every subject with the same commitment with which she spoke on Smith's Dock, she will he listened to with great respect.
Those of us who have spoken before on similar Bills—I recall Bills of 1983 and 1986—will, of course, have a sense of deja vu. Yet again we are upping the borrowing limit of the corporation and increasing the expendable maximum prescribed under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. Some may believe that we return to this Chamber too often to increase those limits, but I believe that it is right that we should periodically debate the problems of our shipbuilding industry. It is also right that Parliament, conscious of the fact that shipbuilding is one of our great industries, and as protector of the taxpayer, should remind itself of the problems that that industry faces.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred, as I intended to do, to the fact that this debate falls almost exactly 10 years after vesting day. It marks the 10th anniversary of nationalisation. Therefore, this debate gives us more opportunity than the debates of 1983 and 1986 to look back over the decade since nationalisation to review progress.
That decade of nationalisation must be set against a continually deteriorating international background, an increasingly difficult world market for merchant shipbuilding and the fact that, in each successive year, prices are more and more depressed and orders more scarce and therefore harder to secure. The continuing depression of the world market must be coupled with the absence of any firm evidence that the serious structural over-capacity in Japan and South Korea will be reduced in the foreseeable future or that there will be any true change in the low-cost, high-subsidy regimes practised by those countries. Those regimes underpin that over-capacity. I shall return to that problem later.
Given the international situation, I believe that three points should be emphasised. First, continuing support will be required for British Shipbuilders. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not make too much of the extent of financial support provided in the past. I can think of few industries that have enjoyed such support from the Government. The borrowing limit initially set in 1977 was £250 million. Today we are being asked to extend that borrowing limit to £1,800 million. Given that there is now a work force of just over 10,000, it is now running at some £150,000 per man.
Secondly, it seems inevitable that British Shipbuilders must continue down its newly chosen path of specialisation. I hope that, however difficult the corporation's financial position may become, the product development programme will continue to be well funded. I trust that British Shipbuilders will continue to identify the niches in the market place from which added value and a sufficient return on capital can be derived.
Thirdly, there is the continuing problem of overcapacity in the international market. Obviously, as my right hon. and learned Friend illustrated, it is a worldwide problem. It is not something that the Government can tackle alone. However, I believe that we are now beginning to make some progress, at least on a Community basis. The sixth directive is now in place and I believe that the importance of that directive is not simply in establishing uniformity among the state aids that are given to various member states, but also in introducing much stricter guidelines on the transparency of financial relations between member states and their shipbuilding industries.
What I want to know from my right hon. and learned Friend is whether it would be possible for the Government to take the negotiating position that they adopted in Brussels during negotiations on the sixth directive on to a much wider forum, perhaps within the OECD. In that way we might be able to establish some internationally agreed code of transparency that would make it easier to identify the extent of subsidy within the Korean and Japanese regimes.
I will leave that suggestion with my right hon. and learned Friend, but, in the meantime, I am happy to support this Bill.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I begin my speech by congratulating three people. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke about her constituency with a calm and ease that deserves our congratulations. Many of the issues that she raised are of

concern to me as an hon. Member representing a southwestern constituency, the dualling of the A30 through Cornwall being one example. I hope that we shall be able to work together to achieve that aim.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam). All hon. Members must have been impressed—some were possibly a little embarrassed—that, unlike her, we did not speak entirely without notes. That deserves particular congratulations.
I also congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on taking the Chair. I hope that you will respect the importance of free debate by Back Benchers and, of course, minority parties and their role in debates.
I do not claim to represent an area in which many workers are employed by British Shipbuilders. However, I represent an area in which the Merchant Navy, shipping and boat building are important. Above all, it is an area in which we can see only too clearly the effects of the decline in shipbuilding. A great number of large boats are moored in Carrick roads in my constituency—a rusting badge of honour for the decline of shipbuilding and the Merchant Navy.
All hon. Members are united in the belief that it is absolutely necessary to continue to support British shipbuilding and to maintain it at its present level. It is clear that we must produce policies and support that will achieve that end. But I am afraid I must say that the Minister seemed to be struggling to justify his position, that he showed precious little verve or imagination to demonstrate that he saw a way of moving forward from the present situation. With the world now facing 40 per cent. over-capacity in its ability to produce ships, and Europe having only 15 per cent. to 18 per cent. of world trade, we are facing a crisis. We must decide whether we wish to continue to support the industry.
Korea and Japan are dominating the market with, frankly, Korea deliberately producing below cost, on the basis of Government subsidies and, at the same time, expanding its capacity — an expansion of capacity of about 240 per cent. over the past 20 years or so. It is possible to argue — I encourage hon. Members to examine the argument—that Korea wants the far east to take control of the world market by effectively buying out its opposition through subsidised production.
John Lister, who is newly appointed to the industry, has asked:
How can you compete with a country that trains its army commandos to bite the heads off live venomous snakes?
Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but it is true that we have to face up to the reality that British Shipbuilders is not suffering purely from market forces or a shipbuilding depression. It is also suffering from a deliberate and well-thought-out strategy to undermine European shipbuilding to the point at which it is unable to compete effectively and at which, once again, there is an increased demand for British ships and ships throughout the world.
Mr. Lister also asked how one can work productively under a Government that puts a man into office and tells him that his job is to
cost them less money and prepare the group for eventual privatisation?
Such a Government would not win prizes for motivation in the present circumstance. The truth is that it is not possible to prepare the industry for privatisation while we suffer the current cut-throat competition in world markets and the current challenges to shipbuilding in Europe. We


have seen not only three ministerial changes in the past year, but, in the past four years, four chairmen of British Shipbuilders. The changeover in personnel seems to be the one growth area in the industry.
British shipbuilding is a vital industry, but we have seen a gradual depletion of the merchant fleet, with enormous trade and strategic implications and also implications for shipbuilding. It is predicted that, as we approach the 1990s, world orders for British ships will double, yet British Shipbuilders has been cut to a shadow of its former self, while Korean shipbuilding has expanded. That is why it is essential to increase borrowing powers. It is essential to maintain the basis to be able to meet the challenges of the 1990s and not withdraw from an industry that, sooner or later by its very nature, as the hulks rust away, will see a resurgence. The House does not want to face a far eastern monopoly that Europe cannot challenge and meet.
That is why, going beyond the measures that we are debating tonight, it is important that many other measures are taken to help the British shipbuilding industry. It is important for jobs and, as we have heard, for the communities that are involved, but it is also important for the country and its strategic interests.
The Government can and should look further than the limited matters covered by the Bill, towards responding, for example, to inquiries for selected product ranges that are backed by different European countries, so that, once again, the industry can gain the economies of scale that it risks losing at present. There should be more work on standardising equipment ranges in the interests of supporting shipowners and shipbuilders in their desire to compete internationally. There should be more use of the intervention fund to enable the United Kingdom to tender internationally. Therefore, it is essential to have stable exchange rates. To do that, we must join the European monetary system. I urge the Minister to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and forcibly argue that case on behalf not only of British Shipbuilders but of the industry in the United Kingdom as a whole.
We need to examine a tax regime that is designed to encourage the construction of new ships. We must look at a scrap and build policy to support the shipbuilding industry and modernise the aging merchant fleet. Strong pressure must come from the European Community and the United Nations to end subsidised competition against our merchant fleet and growing competition from Comecon countries. Above all—it is directly within the influence of Ministers—we must ensure that all ships that are built with public money are built in United Kingdom yards.
On top of the normal cyclical adjustments, we face a deliberate attempt to destroy the European industry. It places an obligation on the House and on the Government to rise to the challenge.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Shipbuilding debates tend to follow the same pattern. I do not intend to go over the whole range of shipbuilding issues. They were covered comprehensively and competently by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). On this occasion, there has at least been a little variety in the debate. We have heard two maiden speeches by hon. Ladies. It is a pleasure to add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson),

who spoke of her predecessor, Sir Peter Mills, who was well regarded by hon. Members. She spoke extremely competently and confidently about the problems affecting her constituency.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) who spoke extremely well. She mentioned her predecessor, Mr. James Tinn, who was highly regarded by hon. Members. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend because she made what many maiden speakers do not make—a real debating speech, and she did so with hardly any use of notes. I look forward to hearing her in many shipbuilding debates. Unfortunately, the number of Members with an interest in shipbuilding is declining all the time as more and more yards are closed. That declining number is a reflection of the dreadful experience that the industry has had.
I shall be speaking about my yard, Govan Shipbuilders. I was delighted with the Chinese order. I acknowledged at the time to the Minister's predecessor—and I am glad to acknowledge again — the help given by the Government to obtain that order. The aid and trade provision played an important part in the difficult negotiations. The main tribute for their success must go to the managing director of Govan, Eric Mackie, and various members of Govan who were part of the negotiating team. I am happy to pay tribute to them again. This is a most welcome order.
However, the order does not provide for Govan Shipbuilders a permanently secure future, or anything like it. The number of people employed there is very small. It needs continuity of orders. Most of the people employed there have been laid off. Only in the next two or three months will recruitment begin again. Even so, it will not be possible to run Govan Shipbuilders on an economic basis. Although it is an efficient yard, it cannot be run economically without a sufficient order book to keep the facilities in operation. It desperately needs further orders.
The Brittany Ferries order has been placed with a French yard, following intervention by the French Government. Govan put in the lowest tender—there is no dispute about that. The previous Minister took my view—that Govan Shipbuilders, in free and fair competition, had beaten off the competitors and put in the lowest tender with the best conditions for the obtaining of the order. What is more, there was every sign that Brittany Ferries wanted to place the order with Govan. It made considerable efforts, even when under pressure from the French Government, to put the order with Govan. However, the order went instead to a French yard following intervention by the French Government.
The British Government have taken this matter to the European Commission, rightly alleging that the French Government have breached the sixth directive. This is the first real test of the sixth directive, which was signed only in December last year and came into operation only at the beginning of this year. I had a parliamentary question on that yesterday, but unfortunately it was not reached orally. Instead, I received a written reply today, which says:
As a result of our representations, the Commission has informed the French authorities that any aid for the Brittany Ferries order must comply with the new shipbuilding directive and that no aid may he given without the Commission's approval.
That is all right as far as it goes, but if the order has been obtained improperly, or even illegally, I should like something to bedone to have the order cancelled, the


matter reinstated as it was and the order placed on the basis of genuine free competition. If the directive does not mean that, I am not clear what the point of it is. The great argument for the directive, which the Ministers used at the time when we were not satisfied with the level of aid that could be obtained as the maximum under the directive, was that it had advantages in terms of transparency. We agreed that that was an improvement. This is a real test as to whether the directive can be made to stick.
What is happening? When will we get the report of the Commission? What are the Commission's powers? If the French Government do not co-operate, what will happen? Will they be taken to the European Court?
This order was extremely important for Govan. It had it snatched from under its nose mot unfairly and improperly. I demand that the Government pursue this with the utmost rigour. I hope that we will get an assurance from the Minister when he replies to the debate. I hope that the order can still be retrieved for Govan. No other British shipbuilder was involved in this, so Govan is not squeezing out a British yard.
The St. Helena order will not necessarily come to Govan Shipbuilders. Other shipbuilders are interested, including some in the private sector. However, I believe that Govan Shipbuilders has an excellent chance of getting the order. There has been a great delay in placing the order. It was first announced in May 1986 and I had correspondence with the Minister for Overseas Development on the matter in October 1986. I was told then:
The timing of the replacement of the vessel is well advanced and we hope to be in a position to make a decision shortly.
I raised the matter in a similar debate in December 1986. The Minister said:
The Government have decided what type of ship to recommend to the Government of St. Helena. As soon as that Government's agreement has been received, the ODA will set in motion the competitive tendering arrangements for design and construction of the new vessel in a United Kingdom yard."—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 142.]
A few days later the Minister gave details of the type of ship that the Government had in mind and said that they were setting in motion the competitive tendering arrangements. We are now seven months further on and we still have not had a firm date for when the tender procedure is to be completed and an order placed. It is not good enough for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that the Government hope to place the order some time this year. The order should have been placed a long time ago, and certainly it should be placed within the next few weeks.
If the Government want to persuade the industry and the House, and particularly Opposition Members, that they care about the shipbuilding industry, here is an order directly in the Government's gift. It is desperately needed by a British shipbuilding yard. I am confident that Govan will put in a competitive tender, so I hope that the order will come to it. It will in any case come to the United Kingdom. It has nothing to do with the world situation, South Korea, Japan or anybody else. It is a public sector order and I hope that we will hear a commitment to place it soon.

Dr. Godman: The closing date for tenders for the St. Helena ferry is 25 August. Should not the period of assessment be reduced from three to two weeks so that the order can be placed as quickly as possible?

Mr. Millan: Once the tenders are made, I hope that there will be no further delay. My hon. Friend knows the story of all the delays so far. I cannot understand the dilatory way in which this matter has been dealt with, particularly as it has been raised so frequently in the House by myself and other right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that we shall get something more specific and definite when the Minister answers the debate.

Mr. Bob Clay: The key to this debate is the point that has been made in every debate that I can remember—since 1983—which is that, although there may be a recession in world shipbuilding generally, this country has taken by far the greatest share of that recession in Europe, if not in the world. I can remember times when Ministers claimed in debates such as this that the Koreans were intending to cut back. Tonight, even some Conservative Members have recognised that Korea is still expanding capacity. On the last Lloyds register more than 30 per cent. of the tonnage waiting to be commenced around the world—30·2 per cent., in fact—is now held by Korea.
It is worth making the point that those of us who have persistently pointed to Korea and described its ability to undercut countries such as ours in shipbuilding have maintained that that has had to do with the nature of its slave labour economy. Those of us who were denounced for saying that sort of thing about Korea can point to the events of recent weeks there. I received a letter complaining about something that I said on television about Korea. It was from a business man who spends a lot of time in Korea. He said that it was outrageous to describe Korea as a slave labour economy:
It is cheap and snide … The Koreans are a very hardworking and loyal race.
We have seen how loyal they are to the oppressive and reactionary regime under which they have suffered for so long. I hope that recent events in Korea will lead to a position in which, if we had a sensible Government in this country, we could talk to Korea about more sensible arrangements for the long-term future of world shipbuilding. That would benefit the Korean working-class as well as our own.
The Government must answer a simple question about the future of British shipbuilding. If it is true that there are now 538,000 gross registered tonnes that are more than 20 years old in what is left of the British fleet; if there are another 1,216,000 gross registered tonnes that are 15 to 20 years old; and if there are probably 6 million gross registered tonnes that will need repairing and replacing in the next 10 years, only three things can happen. That tonnage will eventually disappear, or it will be rebuilt abroad, or it will be built in this country. Even if only half of the tonnage of the British merchant fleet that needs replacing in the next few years was built in this country as a result of sensible scrap-and-build policies or other inducements—quite apart from orders such as that for St. Helena, which are in the Government's gift, or orders from developing countries—that would fill what is left of our yards to more than their present capacity. That demonstrates the disgraceful state of affairs that we are in.
Opposition Members warned for long enough that our merchant capacity was sinking to the point at which it would eventually be unable to survive. In some ways we have already reached that stage. There are already hints of the impossibility of certain orders because, if they were secured, we could not build them in British yards, That is how low our capacity has sunk.
It is a pity that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has left the Chamber, because he specifically referred to Sunderland in his opening remarks, and to the £50 million losses on contracts over and above subsidy and intervention. He pointed his finger at Sunderland as the main culprit in that respect. Clearly, there have been problems in Sunderland. They have been symptomatic of the attitude of British shipbuilders and of the Government's lack of interest in what is going on. It is quite extraordinary that, on the one hand, the management of British Shipbuilders in Sunderland — North-East Shipbuilders Ltd.—is saying that it is still necessary to make 205 redundancies, resulting in our facing, week by week, the nervous and worrying situation that compulsory redundancies will be declared, with their inevitable consequences; and, on the other hand, the management is saying that it will need an extra 240 workers for the next six to eight weeks, including the holiday period, to come either from the existing employees in Sunderland, who will work during their holidays, or by bringing workers from other British Shipbuilders' subsidiaries, or by subcontracting. So, on the one hand, capacity is being run down with enforced redundancies and, on the other, they are talking about bringing people in from outside as subcontractors. That is a measure of the state of what is left of the industry. How on earth can the Government or the senior management of British Shipbuilders expect to have sensible industrial relations and stability in an industry that is desperately fighting for survival while that kind of insanity is going on?
I ask the Government to make inquiries at British Shipbuilders about a specific matter. Welcome as the ferry orders were in Sunderland—they were a lifeline that saved the yards there—some serious questions must be asked about what happened. The order for 25 ferries was a marvellous contract worth more than £100 million. However, at the time the order was signed we were told that the work was unsophisticated. Now we find that the standards required—57/50—are the highest in world shipbuilding. The management is continually saying that the programme is getting behind, and that the work content is becoming more and more complicated and that is why the unions have been forced to agree to double shift working and many other productivity measures. There is widespread feeling in Sunderland that the contract was negotiated in a way that would lead inevitably to the circumstances that I have described.
Mr. George Parker, the chairman of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd. at the time the contract was negotiated, then left British Shipbuilders in peculiar circumstances which have never been publicly explained by British Shipbuilders. He took a job with P.Z. Trading Company Ltd., which placed the order for 25 ferries with British Shipbuilders. That may be a pure coincidence, but many people in Sunderland are saying that some questions about what is happening must be answered. These events are typical of the type of arrogance, secrecy and hostility that

have been displayed to the work force—a feeling that there is a game of chess to be played, rather than getting on with the job.
There has been a feeling of resentment among the work force over the continual tiers of management that they have experienced during the past few years. The turnover of managers in Sunderland in British Shipbuilders exceeds even the number of Government Ministers who have dealt with these debates, or the number of chairmen of British Shipbuilders at national level. How can one expect workers in a shipyard to feel any confidence in the future when they see managers come and go in—sometimes—extremely mysterious circumstances, and when, suddenly, contracts that were welcome turn into nightmares of double shift work and people being told to work in their holidays? Subcontracting often causes the hold-ups of which the Minister complains; work is sent out abroad, is then said to be substandard and has to be sent back abroad, and is then sent to another subcontractor. We have had a long history of that.
There must be an inquiry into the way in which British Shipbuilders has been managed. We can survive if the Government seriously examine the policies for which we have continually argued, and which have been succinctly expressed from the Opposition Front Bench this evening. We need to take advantage of the sensible policies that could be available — scrap-and-build, greater efforts towards obtaining orders from developing countries and coming to more sensible international solutions. We need a more sensible way of running what is left of the British shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I can remember the considerable pride that was felt on Tyneside when Benton house was opened in my constituency as the national headquarters of the British shipbuilding industry. The north-east of England does not have many headquarters of national industries and it seems as if, since 1979, the Government have been set on closing the one national headquarters that we still have.
In a superb maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) spoke about the pain and hurt that has been occasioned in her community by the closure of Smith's Dock. Similar stories could be told by hon. Members representing constituencies in Tyneside arid Wearside as well as Teesside. A lot of pain and hardship has been caused in our communities because of what has happened to the shipbuilding industry, and especially because of the Government's privatisation of the warship building yards and their cynical rundown of the merchant shipbuilding industry. That did not happen all at once in one great confrontation, but the Government chipped away a little piece each time. Then they come to the House and in debates just like this say that the industry will now be stabilised, that there is a world crisis but that at least there are some prospects for the future.
In each debate, year after year, Ministers speak less about the prospects and more about the difficulties of the current situation. I intervened during the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's opening speech to ask about intervention funding. In response he tried to imply that I was seeking intervention funding for warship yards that was justly the due of merchant yards. Nothing could be further from the truth. As my hon. Friend the Member for


Redcar said, one working-class community will not try to offset its hurt at the expense of another working-class community in the same position.
If through intervention by the Minister's Department or as a result of the constraints that are put upon it because the merchant sector is now so small British Shipbuilders is refused work in a certain part of the shipbuilding industry, is it the Government's intention to allow the private yards to compete for that work with the same sort of intervention funding support that our European but not our far eastern competitors are allowed?

Mr. Atkins: Give an example.

Mr. Brown: The Minister asks me to give an example. The example that I have in mind is probably commercially confidential and I do not want to give it. The Minister grins, but it is a bit mischievous for his boss to say that he did not know what I was talking about.
I can give an earlier example, of the Santa Rosa. It is an American-owned vessel and it was offered to British Shipbuilders, not for construction or reconstruction but for outfitting. British Shipbuilders declined to undertake that work. It was then offered to Swan Hunter in my constituency but the work could be undertaken only if Swan Hunter had intervention funding. I went to see the Minister's predecessor, solely on the principle of intervention funding. I will not discuss whether the contract was commercially viable. We discussed only the issue of intervention funding after British Shipbuilders had turned down the order. I was given a rebuff and I take what the Chancellor of the Duchy said today as a further rebuff. On behalf of the shipbuilding community in Tyneside, I urge him to reconsider.
Two years ago the Government said that the future of the British shipbuilding industry lay in specialist work. They are now putting a whole range of specialist vessels outside the ability of our industry. That is a cruel, savage and terminal thing to do to the merchant shipbuilding industry, every bit as much as it is cruel, savage and terminal to do it to the warship building industry. The ability to make vessels is a strategic requirement for an island nation. For the Minister to allow a whole sector of that to vanish is grotesquely irresponsible and future generations will not forgive him for it.
My hon. Friends have spoken about the reductions that our European competitors have made, or are supposed to have made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and our right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said, the statistics show that Great Britain has made its reductions and that our European competitors have not come with us. We have been playing cricket while others have been fighting with flick knives, and that story can be told about other industrial sectors. It is the duty of the Government to defend our interests, even if the overwhelming majority of electors in the shipbuilding communities show no intention of supporting the Government.
While we are on the European situation, I should like to ask a few questions about the European social fund. That European money is to assist communities in preparing for the hurt and damage that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar spoke about. Such hurt and damage occurs in shipbuilding communities after the industry has gone. Requests for money from the social

fund cannot be made directly by communities, but have to come from the member state through its Government. The feeling in every shipbuilding community in Britain is that the Government are not doing their bit for those communities.
Government spokesmen say that old industries must go and that new ones will come, but where are the new industries on Tyneside? They are not there and they are not on Wearside or Teesside either. The whole of the north of England has been hurt by the loss of jobs in shipbuilding and heavy engineering and has not been assisted directly by the Government through the creation of new jobs. The Government will not even go to Europe to try to obtain funds for the creation of new jobs. Financial assistance from the Minister's Department to the northern region shows a dramatic decline—it has been cut by almost half—since 1979. That is not the sort of thing that should be expected from the Government and they ought to help a region that is in difficulty because of structural changes in its industrial base.
The Government do not have just one state-owned merchant shipbuilding yard; they have two. They have the one that hon. Members have spoken about, and the one that is in Belfast at Harland and Wolff. Many of my hon. Friends who represent merchant shipbuilding constituencies fear that, in a world where yards are fighting hard for orders, Harland and Wolff is on the inside track and is not subject to the same constraints, restrictions or cuts that are visited on our communities in the north-east of England and in the other shipbuilding communities on the mainland. It may be said that Swan Hunter has a particular grudge because of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel, and that is correct. The Northern Ireland Office fights hard in Cabinet for Harland and Wolff and the Department of Trade and Industry has a duty to fight hard for mainland merchant shipbuilding communities. So far I see no evidence at all that it intends to do anything of the sort.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have two British Shipbuilders establishments in my constituency, and for that reason I welcome this Bill.
Before the Minister leaves the Chamber I should like to ask him a question about the Brittany Ferries order. Has the European Commission the power to rescind the decision of the French Government to place this order with a French yard? That is a critical question. If the French can get away with this flagrant breach of EC regulations, what kind of trust can we place in the Community in terms of a fair and reasonable shipping and shipbuilding policy? How can we expect to have a fair and reasonable system of cabotage if the French get away with this kind of behaviour?
I listened closely to the two maiden speeches that have been made. They were good speeches, delivered with remarkable self-assurance and confidence. It is evident that I have many political interests in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam). However, I have a constituency interest in commom with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) because Appledore Ferguson is situated in both of our constituencies. One is not supposed to criticise maiden speeches, but I was becoming a little concerned about the use of the name Appledore. However, as the hon. Lady said, the company is called Appledore


Ferguson. We shall have to work together to defend the interests of the highly skilled people who work for that company.
In my constituency I have two establishments, Appledore Ferguson at the Newark yard, and the marine engine makers formerly known as John G. Kincaid, now known as Clark Kincaid. Between them those firms employ fewer than 900 men and women. Kincaid employs about 500 people and Appledore Ferguson employs 320 people. Both companies are vital to the British shipbuilding industry and to the local community in particular because in the Greenock travel-to-work area, which extends slightly beyond my constituency, more than 10,000 men and women are unemployed. Male unemployment in Greenock and Port Glasgow is in excess of 26 per cent. The overall unemployment rate is about 21 per cent. Those are the Government's figures, not unofficial ones. That is a scandalously high level of unemployment.
The importance of those two establishments is accentuated by the threat of closure that is hanging over Scott Lithgow. To a large extent, that threat has been brought about by the Ministry of Defence's refusal to place an order with the yard that was promised 17 months ago in the wake of the placement of a huge order for conventional submarines with Vickers of Barrow-in-Furness. It is the view of many of my constituents and myself that the Government have acted in bad faith towards Scott Lithgow and my constituents.
On Tuesday I appealed to the Secretary of State for Defence to honour his moral obligation, which he acknowledged, to place those orders with Scott Lithgow. They would provide an essential breathing space and allow Scott Lithgow to look for other orders. I do not expect humility or political principle from this English Government, but that order must be given to Scott Lithgow; otherwise another 1,000 employees will be placed on the dole queue. Another 1,000 families will be pushed down to the poverty line because there will not be a great amount of money for redundancy payments.
Those bleak developments are made darker by the decision of the Clyde port authority to close the Greenock container terminal. That is another example of bad faith being shown to my constituents. The CPA could not run a menage, let alone an ice-cream parlour. Its marketing skills are non-existent. What was needed to protect and promote the interests of the employees of the Greenock container terminal was a superbly orchestrated, worldwide marketing exercise to bring trade to Greenock. The CPA simply was not up to the job. It did not even have the nous to go to London, where there are maritime marketing specialists of a high calibre, to maintain work at the terminal.
Have any discussions taken place between the Minister's Department, Vickers and British Shipbuilders regarding subcontract tenders for the construction of conventional submarines in Barrow? If Vickers wins the orders that it is pursuing overseas, with Government assistance, that yard, together with Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, may not have the resources and the high level of welding skills that are required, and it may have to invite tenders for subcontract work.
I assure the Minister that in my constituency there are the yards and work force to do that work. Facilities in Greenock and Port Glasgow are disgracefully underutilised and there are thousands — this is not

hyperbole—of highly skilled shipyard workers who have been unemployed for some time who can do that work. If the negotiations on the subcontract work and the negotiations with foreign Governments such as Saudi Arabia were to be successful—I say this to the Minister, Vickers and British Shipbuilders—submarines could be built on the Clyde at Yarrow and Scott Lithgow. I should like to know whether those discussions have taken place.
With regard to Appledore Ferguson, we have recently had good news from the Secretary of State for Scotland—the strong likelihood of the placement of an order for a Cal-Mac ferry. One is already under construction at Appledore Ferguson. I should like to hear from the Minister that the Government are giving every support to the specialist small vessel yards, such as Appledore Ferguson, and to the one remaining marine engine builder in British Shipbuilders' stable, Clark Kincaid. Both establishments desperately need orders. I appeal to the Government to ensure that any help that they can give goes to British Shipbuilders and those two companies so that they might survive or, better still, prosper in the future.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I have the privilege of representing part of Sunderland, which 30 years ago was the largest shipbuilding town in the world. At that time the Wear was lined with shipyards which had full order books. Today there is a little over 2,000 people employed there with more redundancies in prospect. Even eight years ago, when the Government were first elected, there were 7,000 men employed in the shipyards on the Wear. For every job that is lost in the yard we lose another two in subsidiary engineering industries, and that is in a town that has 27 per cent. male unemployment, and where a generation of skills are in danger of being thrown on the scrap heap.
It is being suggested tonight — no sensible person would dispute this — that the world recession is the backdrop against which we discuss this subject. That is true, but there are other reasons for the dramatic—some would say catastrophic—decline in British shipbuilding in the last decade or more. First, history records that British shipowners are less willing than our main rivals to buy ships at home. In West Germany, for example, according to the last figures I saw, about 80 per cent. of ships were built in West German yards. In France, the figure was about 90 per cent. and in Italy virtually 100 per cent. But in the United Kingdom it was less than 50 per cent. In Japan, not a single ship ordered by a Japanese company has been built outside Japan since 1947, even though it would have been cheaper for those companies to go across the water to South Korea.
History also records that even public companies have been less than willing to build in British yards. In 1983, the CEGB ordered a cable-laying ship from Korea, and three years ago Trinity House ordered a pilot tender from Korea—ships that could easily have been built in British yards.
Sunderland has an additional problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has already referred. There is a bone-headed management in the yards in Sunderland. I do not suggest that that necessarily applies to the management of other shipyards, but in Sunderland the management is more interested in pursuing class war than in shipbuilding. It has


exploited the crisis in shipbuilding to inflict further humiliation on a work force that has already made great sacrifices. I give just one example. The management there is simultaneously subcontracting out work, not only to small engineering firms outside the yards but abroad, while calling for redundancies. At present it is in the process of demanding another 200 or 300 redundancies.
Very often the work that has been subcontracted out has been substandard, and many weeks of delay have been endured while those mistakes have been put right. Those mistakes would not have occurred had that work been carried out in Sunderland in the first place.
It has been said that British yards should concentrate on high technology and specialist ships. What then do we make of the decision by Graham Day some time ago to close the engineering and technical services only a year after new facilities for designing a marine engine had been installed? That was a crazy decision. The former chairman of British Shipbuilders, Sir Robert Atkinson, said:
It makes my heart bleed. When they start to kill a project like that, they will kill British shipbuilding".
How right he appears to have been.
The collapse of British Shipbuilders, if that is what it has been, has been paralleled by another development in shipbuilding—the flagging-out of a large part of the British fleet to Panama, Liberia, Outer Mongolia and goodness knows where else. Half the number of ships requisitioned for the Falklands war now sail under foreign flags. Our imports and exports are now carried on ships registered under flags of convenience, manned by crews recruited in the poorest countries of the world, and entitled to none of the rights that some of us quaintly associate with civilisation. Those ships were built in foreign yards. As other hon. Members have said, as an island nation 95 per cent. of our trade is carried by sea, but very soon we shall have no ships of our own or the means to build them. That cannot make sense.
This is possibly the last chance for the British shipbuilding industry, or what remains of it. Let me commend to the Government several practical steps that they might consider. First, they should produce the combination of incentives, credits and, if necessary, compulsion to persuade British shipowners to buy British. Secondly, they should introduce the programme of scrap and build which the Tory Government of the mid-1930s produced in the British Shipping Assistance Act, which at 1935 prices gave loans of up to £10 million at interest rates of up to 3 per cent. repayable over 12 years on condition that two tons be scrapped for every one built. In Sunderland the result was a fourfold increase in tonnage launched on Wearside in the space of only two years.
We should also take a leaf from the book of the United States—that home of market forces so much admired by many Conservative Members — and look at the provisions of the Jones Act, under which all domestic coastal traffic in the United States is restricted to United States vessels, under which 50 per cent. of all Government cargoes must be carried in United States vessels, under which all military cargoes must travel in United States vessels, under which 50 per cent. of United States grain exports must be carried in United States vessels, and under which 75 per cent. of grain food aid must be carried in United States vessels. What is to stop us taking similar steps?
Ministers should use whatever influence they have with the management of the two yards that remain in Sunderland to ensure that the workers are treated decently, to stop contracting out and to ensure that the work available is given to those who have given their lives to the industry. If we do not take some of these steps, we shall not have a debate such as this in a few years' time, because no shipyards will be left.
In a debate on exactly the same subject not so long ago, the former right hon. Member for Taunton, Sir Edward du Cann, said:
During my time in the House I have watched the decline of many manufacturing industries and the extinction of others—motorcycles, television, radio, optical instruments, motor cars and so on. Too many have declined and too many have gone. We choose many fancy words to describe the process—and rationalisation is one. To me, it has been a history of industrial disaster … Future generations will never forgive us if we do not say that this process of attrition in British manufacturing industry has gone far enough. It is time to cry halt."—[Official Report, 21 May 1986; Vol. 898, c. 422]
I and I am sure many other hon. Members echo those sentiments in relation to the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milgavie): This has been a debate of much misery, and no hon. Member has brought much cheer to it. I cannot pretend that what I shall say will be any different, because what has happened in my constituency is a reflection of what has happened in the country generally.
Twenty years ago, the QE2 was launched on the Clyde at Clydebank, and we knew at the time that it was the end of the era of sophisticated passenger liners. But we did not realise that it looked like being the end of an era for British shipbuilding. Unless the Government act with a coherent policy, it is difficult to foresee any shipbuilding persisting on the Clyde in 20 years time. Unless some action is taken, Clydebank's last tenuous connection with shipbuilding is likely to disappear shortly with the mothballing of the UIE shipbuilding yard—where the QE2 was built—as there is no work on the horizon.
That is tragic on two counts. First, there can be no area more famous for shipbuilding than the Clyde, and within that area no yard more renowned than that of John Brown, where all the Queen liners were built. As a result, a town that came into existence as a result of shipbuilding looks like losing its raison d'etre.
The second and much greater tragedy is that nowadays we talk not about a dinosaur industry but about a rig-building industry — which, as the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said earlier, is a sunrise industry. The yard has so adapted its methods and technology as to be universally admired. It is a yard in which last year the Queen launched a rig that is at the forefront of this frontier technology. Unfortunately, on the Monday after the launch, UIE and Bouygyes, the French owners, began laying off the work force, which has resulted in the fact that after the annual holiday in Clydebank only 41 workers will be retained.
Clearly, we are only at the early stages of man exploiting the natural resources under the sea and the ice caps. It will be the developed world, not the emerging countries, that provide the technology and skilled manpower to make that possible. Do we want to be part


of that world or not? With the present policy—or lack of policy — Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole will not be part of that world.
The Government are open to the justified criticism that they have squandered the resources of the North sea on bearing the cost of unemployment. They will now be open to the charge of squandering the technology and skills developed in the exploitation of the North sea by allowing the firms that responded to the challenge to disappear. If we allow UIE and other yards to disappear, we shall be throwing away an infrastructure of interlocking firms and suppliers which it will not be easy to reassemble. In UIE we have a nucleus work force with those essential skills, but it is rapidly being broken up. We also need to maintain research and development connections with places such as Glasgow and Strathclyde universities.
What can and should be done? It is not enough to say that it is all woe. First, the skills of the work force could be nourished if the Ministry of Defence work was used much more constructively—not necessarily in the UIE yard but at neighbouring yards such as Yarrow. If we are supposed to be keeping a 50-warship Navy, why is the Ministry of Defence so remiss in keeping up the schedule so that there is planned work ahead?
Labour Members may bitterly regret the work on Trident. We wish that we had won the election and persuaded the country to renounce those missiles. But if that work is to go ahead, submarine pens will need to be built at Faslane, and Scott Lithgow could be competing. However, the Government do not seem to realise the importance of keeping those skills together.
What is the attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Energy and the Scottish Office, whose representative I am glad to see today, to shipbuilding and rig building. Surely those activities cannot be left to short-term market factors. Strategic decisions need to be taken. My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) referred to that. As a maritime nation, we cannot simply allow our merchant fleet to decline into nothing. We must take policy decisions about scrap and build. We cannot allow flags of convenience to rule the waves. We must step in and say, "This is simply not adequate."
What is the stance of the various Government Departments about UIE and oil exploration? How do they envisage the industry developing? Do they want it to have a future? We know that we cannot leave these matters to short-term market forces if we are to be part of the future that the exploitation of the earth's resources will create, but it seems that the Government are doing exactly that.
In all that I have said I have only echoed the report of the Select Committee on Energy, which said that the depressed rate of activity in the North sea would weaken the British offshore supplies industry so much that it would be unable to take advantage of a resurgence in activity if oil prices recover in the next few years.
The problem is not peculiar to the traditional shipbuilding industry. The Government are also remiss about parts of the industry where they have encouraged development. I challenge the Government on their policies on the exploitation of the world's maritime resources. Are they going to formulate a coherent policy so that we can share in the future, or are they going to sit on their backsides?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): It is with some trepidation that I rise at the Dispatch Box to wind up this debate as, in the past, my interventions from a sedentary position have amused the House on occasions. I know that I am now a target and that hon. Members may do the same to me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on his success in the shadow Cabinet elections and I congratulate Madam Deputy Speaker who graced us with her presence earlier.
As one whose family have worked as shipwrights in the Royal Naval dockyards in Kent and Devon continuously for more than 100 years, I have more than a passing ministerial interest in the shipbuilding industry. I hope that the remarks made about the number of changes of Ministers will not apply to me — at least in the foreseeable future. It is particularly worth while to hear so many Members speak with real knowledge and experience of the industry.
I hope that the House will join me in paying compliments to the two maiden speakers, who, in this case, were literally maiden speakers, if I can put it that way. The speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) was eloquent and forceful, and we welcome her to the House. I agree with those hon. Members who admired her courage in speaking without notes, because I cannot.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for participating in the debate. We are delighted that she has done so. She spoke glowingly of her constituency, which is obviously extremely beautiful, and of her predecessor, Sir Peter Mills, who is well known to the House. We wish him a happy retirement. My hon. Friend referred to Appledore Ferguson in her constituency, which plays a vital part in local industry. We welcome and thank her for her contribution.
This debate has highlighted the concern felt by us all about the shipbuilding industry. We have had wide-ranging discussions and heard a number of views, although perhaps our conclusions will be different. I could spend a lot of time answering the points that have been raised, but, with permission, I should like to deal with only one or two and write to hon. Members on the detailed points.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East raised some points that can be answered reasonably quickly. He asked about the St. Helena order. I understand that the tender has been issued and bids need to be in to the consultants by 25 August. Therefore, the matter is now advanced although it has been delayed for some time—[Interruption.] We shall encourage it as far as we can.
As hon. Members may be aware, the Cuban order has been put on ice. British Shipbuilders is now negotiating on a new specification, and it seems that the new order is some way off.
A number of hon. Members, led by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), referred to the Brittany Ferries order. That is a complex matter, and many hon. Members may not be aware of the detail of it. It is worth pointing out that Brittany Ferries is a company of complex structure, but that essentially it originates from and is owned by French farmers in Brittany. The yard to which the French hope that the order will go is, practically


speaking, owned by the French Government. If one adds to that the fact that the French Industry Minister represents a nearby constituency, it becomes clear that the pressures on Brittany Ferries have been substantial.
I agree that it appears that Govan expected to get the order, but I am led to believe that the Dutch were not out of consideration and that it is likely that the aid that they offered is considerably less than that offered by us. Clearly, therefore, the pressures on us are substantial.
I understand that the European Commission is examining the aid packages offered by all members states which have tendered for the order. We expect the Commission to decide shortly—possibly next week—to open formal procedures under article 93 of the treaty of Rome. Until that process is complete, no aid may be given. We have pressed and continue to press the Commission to act decisively. The Commission has power to prevent aid being paid or to require its repayment, if illegal, but it does not have power to frustrate a contract. We shall pursue the matter as forcefully as we can. The Commissioner concerned is sympathetic to our pressure and I hope that in due course I shall be able to write to hon. Members concerned in considerably more detail. The House should, however, be aware of our great concern about this matter.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East referred to foreign orders. He and all those closely involved will know that at present foreign orders are few and far between. If every shipbuilding country sought to keep its own orders in its own yards, as it is understandably suggested that we should, there would be even fewer orders and the whole situation would become worse. On the hon. Gentleman's other questions, perhaps he will allow me to write to him so that we can get the facts clear and right as they develop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) called for an international investigation into transparent subsidies. The idea makes considerable sense. I will ensure that it is considered and will write to him in due course.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will appreciate that the matters that he raised are largely for the Ministry of Defence. I have heard him raise those matters before and I have no doubt that the Ministry of Defence will be hearing of them again. The hon. Gentleman will know that Clark Kincaid is building engines for the China ships, and if we get the third order it will provide work until 1989.
With regard to management and organisation, the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will understand that I have not yet had the opportunity to investigate the details. We expect to receive the corporate plan from Mr. Lister in the autumn. We shall then review the position in detail.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) raised matters which are largely the concern of the Department of Energy and of the Treasury. I am sure that he will continue to make those points where they need to be heard.
As I understand it, the essence of the criticisms directed at the Government are, first, that we lack a co-ordinated policy and, secondly, that we have not done enough. Some Opposition suggestions, such as the idea of a task force, need to be considered. The Opposition have called for a coherent policy toward shipbuilding. We believe that we have such a policy, first, in the co-ordination of a maritime

and shipbuilding policy and, secondly, in the timing and volume of public sector orders. The Opposition will be aware that public sector orders are few and it makes little sense to order in advance of need, because, by the nature of budgets, other activities are bound to be displaced. Nevertheless, there are some orders and they undoubtedly help.
Building is now going on of a research ship for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a fisheries protection vessel for the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and a larger ferry for Caledonian MacBrayne. Orders will be placed this year for another Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, a small ferry for the Shetlands and the St. Helena ship. Two small ferries for the Orkneys will come next year. A task force could do little or nothing to alter the number and timing of those orders.
With regard to aid and financial packages to support our export orders, we have already done quite a lot, particularly in relation to China, to which the right hon. Member for Govan kindly referred as something that we have achieved with some pressure.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on his elevation to an important position on the Opposition Front Bench. With regard to Korea, I had intended to refer to a rather delightful quotation, but the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) pinched it. I shall not repeat it, but it sums up the view of many Members.
Another point worth remembering about the idea of a task force is that it is irrelevant to the ordering needs of United Kingdom owners. They have to face difficult world conditions, and if they are not free to choose where to build the ships that suit them best they will be at a considerable disadvantage against competitors, thus putting other British jobs at risk. As it happens, their recent ordering record is quite good. Some 70 per cent. of compensated gross tonnage ordered for registration under the United Kingdom flag in 1986 was placed in United Kingdom yards. If we forced United Kingdom owners to buy here, what do the Opposition imagine would happen if other countries did the same?
Our policies coincide with those of the European Commission, which provides the framework for merchant shipbuilding support. The new sixth directive, to which Members on both sides have referred, is much better than its predecessors. We recognise the problems with the French—from my former incarnation in relation to the aircraft industry, I know only too well how difficult the French can be — but we shall make certain that the Commission ensures that aid is fair. Hon. Members on both sides who have shipbuilding interests and know the issues well must not press me on the ingenuity with which we sometimes interpret the rules, as that would not be in anyone's interests.
British Shipbuilders has experienced great difficulties in recent years and it continues to do so. There are three main reasons for this. First, there have been delays and alterations in specifications for orders received. Secondly, as we have heard in the debate, there have been customer failures. Thirdly, there has been poor performance in a variety of areas. As I have said, there is a new chairman—Mr. John Lister—and we await his presentation of the corporate plan in October or November this year. We shall consider that plan carefully and in due course report to the House.
This has been an interesting debate. I have learnt a great deal today and I shall continue to learn more. In the meantime, the Bill provides financial scope to fund British Shipbuilders for a further period, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Committee tomorrow.

BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS (BORROWING POWERS) BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 which is attributable to provisions of the Act raising to £1,550 million the limit imposed by section 11(7) of the said Act of 1977 and authorising the Secretary of State to provide by order for that limit to be increased or further increased up to a maximum of £1,800 million; and
(b) the payment of any sums into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill

Order fir Second Reading read.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is before the House to authorise the construction of a new bridge across the Thames between Thurrock and Dartford, to take the existing two tunnels into the national road network, and to provide for the arrangements for financing the work.
The history of legislation on this subject began in 1930 when the construction of the first tunnel was opposed on the ground that a steel bridge would be a better solution, especially as it would help employment in the north-east. There are now two tunnels, providing two lanes of traffic in each direction. They form the link between the M25 to the north and south of the river. The tunnels are owned and operated by Essex and Kent county councils. With the coming of the M25, the councils and others became concerned about the adequacy of the crossing and the Government commissioned a study of the problem.
In 1985, the consultants' report predicted that in the early 1990s there would be serious congestion at the tunnels. The tunnels themselves would be the real problem, not the need to stop and pay a toll. The 24 toll booths now operating can cope efficiently with the highest possible flow of traffic across the Thames at this point. In 1985–86 the average daily traffic at the tunnels was 60,210 vehicles. With the completion of the south-east part of the M25, it was predicted that the average would rise to 67,500 in 1986–87 and 77,500 in 1990–91. In practice, the daily average last year was 69,000, despite the abnormal weather in January. The latest figures indicate a further increase. The daily average for April to June this year was more than 75,500—a 9 per cent. increase over the corresponding months in 1986.
These figures reflect the success of the M25, which is keeping traffic out of London and off unsuitable local roads, and the economic growth we are experiencing due in part to this Government's prudent management of the economy. Extra capacity across the Thames is needed urgently. The Government have recognised the need and taken the action which results in the Bill before the House today.
When my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment appeared in July 1985 before the Select Committee on Transport, he suggested that urgently required infrastructure of this kind—"infrastructure" is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I call roads and bridges—might he provided by the private sector.

Mr. Roger Moate: And tunnels.

Mr. Bottomley: Tunnels as well, but we are going for a bridge this time. Although the Committee disagreed with us on the merit of tolls, it noted with approval my right hon. Friend's suggestion and urged him to investigate it.
Guidelines to intending promoters were published on 3 March last year. We left it to bidders to propose the appropriate engineering solution and asked for bids based on both public and private finance. Proposals for nine engineering projects from seven promoters were received by the closing date, 31 May. After careful examination of


the bids, on 29 September my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the proposals of Trafalgar House to build a bridge with private finance, recovered from tolls paid by users, had been selected. To carry out its proposals, Trafalgar House and its financial backers formed a company, Dartford River Crossing Ltd., with which the Secretary of State concluded a concession agreement on 9 April.
The bridge will carry four lanes of traffic southbound. The tunnels will then take all the northbound traffic. The bridge will be built just downstream of the present tunnels. Its main dimensions have been agreed with the Port of London Authority, which is responsible for navigation in the river. At approximately 450m, the main span will be one of the longest in the world for a cable-stayed bridge. We calculate that 5,000 man years of work will be provided, much of it in steel production and fabrication in Scotland and the north-east of England. DRC and the construction companies, Cementation Ltd and Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Ltd, have agreed a price of about £86 million, at October 1986 prices, for the design and construction of the bridge.
We selected this project for a number of reasons. It offered an earlier solution to the problem than any other project. Its construction and predicted maintenance and operating costs, taken together, were lower than the other proposals submitted. The major financial risks would be borne by the private sector, which would relieve the road programme of the burden of paying for it. In this instance, we can use the money for other urgently needed road improvements. This reduces the risk of delay to the many schemes due to start in 1988–89 including, for example, the A1 Dishforth interchange and the A42 north of Castle Donnington, and the important bypasses of Robertsbridge on the A21 and Eye on the A47. These advantages could be obtained without extending the period during which tolls needed to be charged significantly beyond what would have been needed to recoup the cost if the project had been built and tolled in the conventional way by the Department. It does not make sense to have a bridge in one direction operated by one management and tunnels the other way run by a different body. We propose to take the tunnels into the national road network and lease them to DRC to operate them jointly with the bridge.
I pay tribute to Essex and Kent councils, which have done excellent work for 50 years or more in getting these tunnels constructed and managing them with prudence and considerable success. We have assisted with grants for the 12 new toll booths and for widening the approach roads, but it is the councils and their staff that deserve most of the credit. The tunnels, which provide an essential link in the M25, should now be made a national responsibility. The counties accept this. They have been pressing us for some time to take this step, provided they are not left with residual liabilities. The Bill achieves that.
The arrangements for financing the new crossing, the remaining costs of the tunnels and costs of maintenance during the toll period are innovative. DRC will finance expenditure which is not met from revenue by borrowing privately. The Bill proposes that it should be authorised to take tolls for a maximum of 20 years. Tolls should start at their present levels and be linked to the retail price index. If the revenue from tolls pays off DRC's costs within the 20-year period, the Bill requires the Secretary

of State to bring the toll period to an early end. We expect that to happen. On present assumptions, tolls should cease 14 to 15 years after the crossing is transferred to the Secretary of State.
DRC will not pay dividends on its small equity capital of £1,000. The Trafalgar House construction companies will look to make a profit from the agreed price DRC is to pay them for building the bridge. They have taken on the major risks — costing of the design, delay in completion and unforeseen ground conditions — associated with this kind of project. If they have misjudged these elements, they will see their expected profits reduced. If costs go up for those reasons, the motorist will not have to pay for the increase through tolls. The lenders will receive the return specified in their loan agreements with DRC, but only if DRC's revenues are sufficient to meet them.
The roads on either side of the tunnels are not part of the M25. During the preparation of the guidelines to promoters, it became clear that works to widen these approach roads to four lanes each way would be essential if we were not merely to shift the congestion problem at the crossing further down the road. We have kept the works in the Bill to the minimum necessary. The cost of the work to the approach roads will be met from the road programme, not from tolls.
I think that the House will agree with me that the Government have acted quickly in planning for increased capacity at this important crossing of the Thames. This will be good news for the many people who use the crossing. They would like the crossing to be toll-free. I remind the House of the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) three years ago when some of these issues were considered at length by hon. Members, including me.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What did the hon. Gentleman say?

Mr. Bottomley: I went both ways, a bit like the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's Question Time today, sitting like a poached egg on a barbed wire fence and dribbling down both sides rather inelegantly.
The Government reviewed policy towards tolls last year in the context of a well-researched report from the Select Committee on Transport which advocated the abolition of tolls on crossings forming part of the motorway and trunk road system. In our response we rejected this. While acknowledging the special problems of the Humber bridge board, the Government believe that, in general, they should not write off or discharge the debts of the tolled crossings because tolls are not unfair and because there are more pressing demands on public funds. We think that, where a crossing offers a substantial time and cost saving to users, and the existence of tolls would not cause congestion elsewhere or diversion to unsuitable roads, it is reasonable for users to contribute directly to the cost through tolls. What is more, the provision of a crossing free from tolls would interfere substantially with the rest of the roads programme.
We are faced with this choice and so is the House in considering the Bill. Would it be better for the motorist who uses the crossing to avoid increasing delays and inconvenience by paying a modest toll for rather longer than previously expected and for others to get their bypasses, or would it be better to do the popular thing and


abolish tolls, but have fewer resources for the road programme? I am satisfied that levying tolls here is the more responsible and reasonable course.
The fact that the Dartford crossing is to be privately financed demonstrates that infrastructure provision need not be a matter for Government alone. We are keen to encourage initiatives by the private sector for adding to the level of transport infrastructure whenever this is the most cost-effective way of providing it. The private sector has the opportunity to come forward with proposals for other projects. On a smaller scale, we are also interested in cooperating with the private sector to improve road access to new developments where this can be done safely.
I turn to the Bill's provisions. A Bill is essential to carry out our intentions. No one can levy tolls on a highway without the approval of Parliament. We need a new tolls regime covering the tunnels and the bridge as a combined crossing. We must also repeal the powers and obligations conferred on the councils by the Dartford Tunnel Act 1984. We have to make clear to whom the tunnel undertaking is to be transferred and who will employ the tunnel staff. We cannot leave the counties' ratepayers to pick up the liabilities which are still outstanding from the building of the tunnels. It is necessary to confer on the Secretary of State the special traffic management powers which are necessary for public safety, particularly in respect of the tunnels, and which the Secretary of State does not possess for normal highways. He must also have power to delegate operation and maintenance of the crossing.
We are therefore asking Parliament to approve the bridge and the essential approach road works in the Bill. Some of this work could have been authorised by different procedures under existing legislation. It would be inefficient and time-consuming to ask the House to approve a Bill containing some of the necessary powers and to deal with the remainder by external procedures. We are bringing the complete package to Parliament.
In such a scheme full consultation with all those concerned is of utmost importance. At the outset, we consulted the county councils. When the guidelines to promoters were published, the local councils, Dartford and Thurrock, were kept informed. We have had regular meetings since with the counties at ministerial and official level and I have visited Thurrock and Dartford councils, in addition to contact at official level. The staff at the tunnels were told by our officials about the proposals on the day they were announced and their employers consulted the relevant unions very soon thereafter. In order to inform the public, we organised exhibitions in Dartford and Thurrock in January this year. They were well attended. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has arranged a further meeting between local residents and departmental officials. We have had extensive discussions with statutory bodies including the Port of London Authority and with private landowners fronting on to the river. We have already included in the Bill some protective provisions in schedule 7. We shall be continuing our discussions in preparation for the Select Committee. I am optimistic that we can settle all reasonable fears about the Bill. We have devoted some considerable time to consultation. It is time well spent.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for his continuing help. It is important to keep local authorities and local people alongside our intentions. Many unreasonable fears can be dealt with and many

reasonable problems can be met with such links. Therefore, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has done.
Those with an interest to be protected whom we have been unable to satisfy will, of course, have the opportunity to petition a Select Committee here or in another place. The committal motion is in the usual form for hybrid Bills. We are asking the House to set 20 July as the final date for petitions to be presented. Although that is only 10 days away, potential petitioners have had since the beginning of April to prepare a case. The time limit is therefore by no means unreasonable. We are advertising the final date for petitions locally with the provisio, of course, that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading and passes the committal motion. We have provided that the Select Committee can sit in the recess so that if its members decide that they want to sit then, they will be able to do so
I now wish to describe the main provisions of the Bill. Much of the detail is technical and I do not want to detain the House with it unduly. If I miss points which hon. Members think I should have covered, I will try to cover them in winding up or in subsequent correspondence.
Clauses 1 to 3 authorise the construction of the bridge and the approach road works and the acquisition of land for those purposes. Fortunately, very little extra land has to be taken permanently. On that land, we need to acquire only three occupied houses, and their owners will be compensated. We have been in touch with them for some time.
The second part of the Bill, clauses 4 to 10, deals with the tunnels and the approach roads which are still run by the counties. This part of the Bill trunks the highways in the existing crossing and transfers the land in the undertaking to the Secretary of State, and the rest of the property to the person he appoints — DRC. It also relieves the councils of all the debts and outstanding liabilities related to the tunnels that they would otherwise have met from tolls. Those debts and liabilities will be met by DRC as a consequence of the relevant part of the agreement with them.
We have made provision for the 220 or so staff working at the crossing. They will transfer to DRC. The House will know that staff matters in legislation have in the past raised difficult issues. The Bill provides that staff will transfer to DRC on terms and conditions, including pensions, which will be equivalent to those they enjoy at present.
Part III of the Bill deals with the regime for tolls and the operation of the combined crossing. The tolling powers are at clause 11, revision of tolls is dealt with in clause 17 and clause 16 and schedule 6 deal with the way in which tolls come to an end.
Our intention is that DRC should take over the tunnels on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That will be as soon, after Royal Assent, as everyone is ready to transfer the tunnels and to start building the bridge. The Bill provides that tolls will he levied at present rates and for present classes of vehicle. They will be adjusted to keep pace with inflation, using the tolls at 1 January 1986 as a base. Since tolls at Dartford last increased on I January 1984, there is a slight bonus to the motorist because two years' inflation will be ignored. DRC will stop taking tolls for itself after 20 years or when its costs are paid off, if that is sooner. That is the basic system. On present assumptions, we expect tolls to end in 14 to 15 years.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State a power to ask DRC to extend tolling for up to a year to provide a fund for the future maintenance of the crossing. He will be able to do that only if the period of extension can be fitted into the 20-year maximum period for tolling.
The Bill must also provide for what happens when tolls come to an end. At that point DRC's appointment will be terminated. All the property at the crossing will be transferred to the Secretary of State. The staff will be transferred to him on their then existing terms and conditions. All this must happen instantly, since there must be no gap in the safe operation of the crossing.
We do not expect these arrangements to fail, but the unexpected can happen. If DRC fails, the crossing transfers immediately to the Secretary of State. If, at that point—for example, because the bridge is incomplete—the Secretary of State faces costs, the Bill allows him to take tolls until he has recouped these costs. He is subject to the same maximum period for tolls, but he is allowed to come to the House just once for an affirmative resolution extending the tolling period by five years if more time is needed to recover public money which has had to be invested in the bridge. The Secretary of State is not allowed to take tolls if DRC's appointment comes to an end because he is in breach of contract.
Clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to delegate the maintenance and operation of the crossing to DRC or, when tolling comes to an end, to any person, including a local authority. It is essential, if the scheme is to work, that whoever runs the crossing has all the powers and duties to maintain it.
The remainder of the Bill is largely technical in content but I should draw the attention of the House to clauses 33 and 34, which provide for DRC's or the Secretary of State's accounts to be laid before the House, so that the House may have the opportunity to examine them.
I should say a few words about the agreement with DRC, copies of which are in the Library. It is the first of its kind. Since it is providing the finance and taking many of the risks, DRC must be allowed as much freedom as possible in constructing the bridge, running the crossing and managing the affairs of the company. Nevertheless, the crossing will be a vital part of the public road network for which the Secretary of State is statutorily responsible. The agreement gives him powers to ensure that DRC builds the bridge that it has promised to build and that any changes of plan are shown to be necessary. He can make sure that DRC maintains the crossing properly and he has powers of intervention if it does not. In return, it can expect him not to interfere with what it is doing. The agreement rightly places on DRC all the risks that it has said that it will accept. If it fails in any respect its lenders could lose a lot of money. Equally, there are risks which I cannot expect it to accept and which will be borne by the public purse. An example would be a structural defect in one of the tunnels, which it did not build. I hasten to reassure the House that we have no reason at all to suspect that any such defect will become apparent. This is not the time to give a detailed description of the agreement. I expect that there may be discussion of it in Committee.
We bring before the House a solution to a problem which must be solved urgently. The scheme is novel and we have acted quickly and decisively to present it to the House. I am convinced that, taken as a whole, it offers the

taxpayer and the motorist a good deal. I commend the Bill to the House and I trust that it will receive as swift a passage as possible.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Perhaps I should set hon. Members' minds at rest by making it clear that the massed ranks of Opposition Members will not oppose the Bill this evening. However, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, there are a number of issues of principle which apply not only to the financing of this project, but which extend over a wider range.
I cannot remember a time—indeed, this is probably the first time—that the Government have proceeded with an entirely private-sector financing of what is essentially a public works project. We need to know how far that precedent will be followed in the future. There were vague hints in the Minister's speech that some other innovative or novel procedures might be followed in the future. He said that it was up to the private sector to come forward with different solutions, and perhaps that includes approach roads in various places. However, it is clear that the intention of the precedent set in the Bill is that more and more public sector works will be wholly financed by private sources. Will that policy apply only to bridges and tunnels, or will it be extended to road building? Will some of the bypasses not mentioned by the Minister today, or not yet on the programme, be built by the private sector? We must know what the strategy is and not operate on a purely ad hoc basis.
Will the second Severn crossing be financed by the private sector? There are suggestions that Trafalgar House has already prepared plans for a second Severn crossing and would be prepared to build it on a basis similar to the Dartford-Thurrock river crossing. What is the Government's thinking on the east London river crossing? I will not enter the debate about that crossing, which is much more controversial than the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, because we are awaiting the report of the public inquiry, but we want to know whether it will be dealt with in the same way.
Inevitably we must consider how the money should be recouped, and that introduces the dreaded word "tolls". Let me say at once that I have no quarrel with the Government's formula. The company has 20 years to recoup its money and if it does not recoup its money by that time it must bear the loss. If, as the Minister suspects, the money will be recouped in 14 to 15 years, the river crossing complex—the bridge and the two tunnels—will revert to the ownership of the Department of Transport. That is a good way to proceed. But if there is one issue in transport that unites every road user and every road organisation, it is the imposition of tolls and the paying of them. The Minister must ask the question: would the road user prefer to pay tolls and get the bridge more quickly or would he prefer not to pay tolls and wait longer? That question has been asked right from the beginning, when it was decided to build estuarial crossings and charge tolls on them. The clear difference here is that public money was involved in all the other crossings.
I dare say that if a public opinion poll—I am not sure whether we are supposed to mention them nowadays—asked people, "Would you rather pay tolls and get your road tomorrow or not pay tolls and have to wait for 10 years?", the answer would be, "We are prepared to pay tolls." But if the road works were completed within a week


and exactly the same people were polled, they would give entirely different answers. There is a big difference between the theory of paying tolls and the practice.
As the Minister rightly said, the Select Committee on Transport in the previous Parliament published a report on toll crossings in February 1986, and its recommendations appear at paragraph 103 on page XXXII. There were three recommendations. The first was that no tolls should be imposed on new estuarial crossings and that the Department of Transport, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office should work towards the early removal of existing tolls. Secondly, it said that the debts owed to central Government should be written off immediately. The argument was that this was mainly a book-keeping entry. The money was being spent anyway, so they could simply juggle the books. In some circumstances, that is called creative accounting. The third recommendation was that local authorities' debt should be discharged by the Government.
The Government know that, whatever the principles of tolls, before too long the Humber bridge will run into serious difficulty. It will cause immense problems to the local authorities in the area, and the Government will have to grasp the nettle. It would be appalling if, for reasons of crisis management, tolls were removed from the Humber bridge but left everywhere else. The Scots, Welsh and English would rise in revolt if that happened. The Government must have a more coherent policy, and perhaps they will reconsider their general policy as the Humber bridge crisis approaches.
Today, and in their second special report of July 1986, the Government rejected the recommendations of the Select Committee. They will apply tolls to new estuarial crossings and they will not remove the tolls on existing bridges. They will not write off their capital debt and they will not discharge the debts of local authorities. But the question remains whether tolls on estuarial crossings, tunnels or roads will be dealt with in the ad hoc way which the Minister suggests. If a private company says, "We will build your bridge or dig your tunnel or provide your bypass," will the Government be persuaded that it is to their political advantage to make the public pay tolls to get those items earlier? The question must be posed not only to the road user but to the Government.
We must also examine the implications for public expenditure forecasts and estimates. I have always thought that the debates on public expenditure and the terms under which such discussions take place have not properly addressed the issue. Often we have sterile debates along the lines that public investment is bad per se and private investment is good per se. That avoids the issue and is shown to be wholly fallacious in this case. This investment is necessary and desirable. Everyone wants it. The only issue is who should pay for it.
In case anyone reads this speech—there is no one at my back listening to it — perhaps I could say this. Labour Members are sometimes told that we oppose private capital investment in essentially public services as a matter of principle, but at the end of the day it does not matter where the money comes from. If the Government borrow the money, which is their normal way of financing the provision of roads or infrastructure, it comes from the private sector anyway. It does not matter whether it comes directly from the private sector, as in this case, or through

the tortuous route of the public sector borrowing requirement. It is probably 99 per cent. private money anyway.
The major question that must be asked is whether we are getting value for money. I shall not argue whether or not the Government have obtained the best value for money, or whether this is the cheapest way of building the crossing, but I would like the Minister to say whether, having examined all the financial implications, this was the best package.
I am interested in the ingenious solution that has been found. It is ingenious because the Government have taken the cost of the bridge totally outside the public expenditure estimates, although it is a public provision. I congratulate the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), on winning what I suspect was a prolonged battle with his Treasury colleagues. He has established an important principle by lifting the cash limites on his departmental budget. All of us who have been interested in infrastructure expenditure have been trying to do that for many years, and I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman achieved it.
I hope that the present Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), will examine this proposition in relation to other industries that are covered by his portfolio. I refer specifically to the example of British Rail. As an aside—an important aside—perhaps the Minister will tell us during his reply whether he and his hon. Friends have any intention of privatising British Rail. That may be too much to ask of him, but perhaps he will give us some indication of how he is thinking. British Rail's finances are governed by its external financial limits. The EFL, as it is known, is a cash limit. Under those rules, it does not matter from where British Rail gets its finances, it is only allowed to spend the figure specified in the external financial limit.
Some years ago, the GLC, which is certainly remembered fondly by me, was willing——

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The GLC looked better from Aberdeen.

Mr. Hughes: I do not think we should denigrate the GLC for the splendid work it did on transport. Its work in that area should he warmly received by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The GLC wanted to make money available to British Rail for the north London line, partly revenue for refurbishment and partly capital investment. I cannot remember what the EFL was for British Rail at that time, but for the ease of my mathematics I will suggest that it was of the order of about £400 million. Therefore, one would have thought that the offer of £20 million from the GLC—because £20 million was offered—would mean that British Rail had £420 million to spend. However, it did not. It had only £400 million, and by accepting £20 million, the British Rail was reduced to only £380 million of free capital. That clearly is financial nonsense. Yet all the efforts that we made to try to get that rule changed have been unsuccessful. Therefore, using the example of driving a coach and horses through the Treasury rules, there is a lot of sense in changing those rules in respect of British Rail.
If local authorities want to make money available for capital expenditure in British Rail, they ought to be free


to do so. That ought not affect public expenditure forecasts and that ought not be counted against the EFL. This is not a fanciful issue. It is not a matter of pure theory or a debating point. It is a very real point because British Rail will have to do a lot of infrastructure development in marshalling yards or wherever to attract business to the Channel tunnel.
The Minister has not anticipated the passage of this Bill. Therefore, I must not anticipate the passage of the Channel Tunnel Bill. Let us assume that the Channel Tunnel Bill is enacted, that finance is provided and that it proceeds. British Rail might want to—I hope that it will—spend a lot of money on its infrastructure. I would not oppose that if the money was there, but supposing that British Rail wanted to go into a joint venture with private sector capital. That is a parallel to what the Government are doing here. It is almost a joint venture, although not quite, because the Government are putting some money into the roads expansion, but it is a partnership. Supposing there is a joint partnership of venture in which private capital is willing to add to British Rail's capital to get facilities to attract business and, of more importance, to ensure that there is service to the customer. Will the Government then say that private sector capital will be added to the external financial limit or cash limit of British Rail? That is a very important principle that ought to be considered.
There is only one issue that is controversial about the bridge and that is its name. I do not wish to mock the people who have raised this with me, but I have had many serious representations about what it should be called. As a non-Londoner, it is perhaps dangerous for me to become involved in that. On the other hand, if it is a matter of great moment, and being a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, I am sufficiently far away to arbitrate on the matter. I offer to do so now for double the usual fee.
I join with the hon. Gentleman in wishing the Bill a speedy passage, the early completion of the bridge and the complex for the benefit of the road users in the area.

Mr. Tim Janman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate because it is of much relevance and specific interest to my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in his maiden speech, gave a brief definition of the geographic whereabouts of his constituency. As the debate takes its course, I hope that all hon. Members will now know precisely where Thurrock is in the United Kingdom. It is opposite Dartford on the Thames, although outside the House one or two friends of mine have actually asked me if I represent a constituency in Scotland—Thurrock sounding rather Scottish.
Thurrock is in the county of Essex. I am pleased to say that in the general election last month it elected its first Conservative Member of Parliament since the constituency was first formed in 1945. I gained the seat from Dr. Oonagh McDonald who worked very hard for the constituency over a period of 11 years. She was a respected parliamentarian on both sides of the House and was an Opposition Treasury spokesman of high intellect. Without meaning offence, she was a woman of some political cunning—an attribute that I certainly came to respect.
The constituency has a population of 67,000 people and stretches from the Hornchurch-Rainham area in the west through to Castle Point on the outskirts of Southend in the east, a distance of about 15 miles. It accounts for about two thirds of the population of the borough of Thurrock. The major towns are Grays and Tilbury. There is no such place as Thurrock. There is not even a hamlet called Thurrock. Hon. Members, if they wished, could go to West Thurrock or Little Thurrock, but they would find it difficult to go to a hamlet even called Thurrock.
Thurrock is comprised of fairly old traditional industrial areas, in particular the docks in Tilbury and the industrial estates in Purfleet, where there are major employers such as the Ford Motor Company, Van Den Berghs and Jurgens, Thames Case and Proctor and Gamble. There are also picturesque villages in my constituency, such as Stifford and West Tilbury.
The main issues in my constituency were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—although they probably did not realise it—and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), who both made eloquent maiden speeches, those issues being very high house prices and hardly any private rented accommodation respectively. In my own constituency those problems are compounded by above average unemployment, if the statistics are to be believed for the south-east, and a communications bottleneck in the form of the Dartford tunnel, which I shall refer to in more detail in a moment. Home ownership in the borough as a whole, which includes part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is depressingly low at only 42 per cent.—a figure that I hope will increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham also mentioned the cost of living in the south-east. He pointed out that companies, and particularly the public sector, should acknowledge that not only is there a huge difference in the cost of living between London and the rest of the south-east, but that there is an increasing gap in the cost of living between the south-east, in a radius of up to about 40 miles outside London, and the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps employers should look at some form of south-eastern allowance as well as a London allowance to try to attract people down to the south-east, particularly to constituencies such as mine where there is an awful gap between the availability of public sector rented accommodation and the people owning their own homes, with a vacuum of private rented housing in between. I can give an example that has been drawn to my attention in the short time that I have been representing the constituency. Two young teachers, both having completed in one year their postgraduate course in education, were living in temporary accommodation provided by the local education authority. They now cannot find accommodation from the local borough council and are being asked to leave the accommodation in which they are living. On the salaries they are earning they cannot afford to buy much more than a garden shed in my constituency and, of course, there is no suitable private rented accommodation. This situation is causing great concern to the local education authority. Young professional people starting out on their careers are finding it almost impossible to come and make a contribution to the community in my constituency because of that factor.
In terms of the geography of Thurrock and Dartford and the traffic flow on the bridge, it is clear that we should be talking in terms of the Thurrock-Dartford crossing


rather than the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. It is normal in the industry to refer to such things as bridges and tunnels according to the direction of traffic flow. As the traffic will be flowing only one way on the bridge, from north to south, it is clear that the name of Thurrock should always come first.
The need for the bridge, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, is very urgent. Queues are developing that are anything up to 10 miles long. I am sure that some hon. Members have had the misfortune to be caught in such a queue. If one compares the traffic volume through the Dartford tunnel for the first quarter of the financial year 1987 with that of the first quarter of the financial year 1986, one can see that there has been a 9 per cent. increase in traffic volume. That compares with an annual average increase for the whole of the United Kingdom of only 3 per cent. Those statistics show how terrifyingly quickly the traffic volumes are building up through that bottleneck.
I should like to add my congratulations to the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), on his imaginative initiative on the use of private enterprise to fund the bridge. It is clear that considerable benefits will emanate from it. First, the bridge will be built quickly. I believe that recently the Freight Transport Association, although not particularly keen on tolls in principle, has accepted that the highest priority is to complete the bridge and not worry about some small breach in the public sector borrowing requirement. Its slight change of attitude is a clear indication of the fact that the Government have got their priority right by using the private sector and tolls to get the bridge built. It will mean that it will not affect the rest of the road-building programme. The maintenance of tolls for up to a period of 20 years will mean, I am delighted to say. that the crossing will be able to continue to employ 220 people rather than only 130 people. That is good news for the people in my constituency and across the river whose livelihood depends upon the facility.
The increase in the number of tolls from 12 to 24 will, I am assured by the Department of Transport, cope with the foreseeable increase in traffic volumes. The pay-back period of up to 20 years will include the existing debt on the current tunnels which, I believe, stands at about £50 million. The construction of the bridge has been guaranteed by the Trafalgar House group, the parent company of the Dartford River Crossing Ltd.
I have only two mild concerns. My first concern is about the bridge that will be built further up the Thames, the Greenwich-Woolwich crossing. I believe that if that continues to be funded by the public sector without tolls it will provide unfair competition. I would like to see that bridge being funded by the private sector and having tolls as well.
My second concern is that I am not yet convinced that we will have adequate electronic warning on the M25. It will be important that motorists can be warned as far in advance as possible of the need to take alternative routes if there has been an accident or there is some blockage on the crossing, either in the tunnel or on the bridge. Therefore, it would be a good idea if we could get effective advance warning systems on all the intersections of the M25 with major routes coming into it so that people can have advance warning of problems.
I would like to see this imaginative initiative—the use of private capital on a major transport project in my constituency — followed up with the same sort of

imagination to get the private sector involved in the Fenchurch Street-Southend line. I seem to recall that some time ago a consortium was set up which was interested in buying the Fenchurch Street-Southend line. It was led, among other people, by my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I understand that it did not get the co-operation from British Rail that it should have had in order to obtain the information necessary to make a proper analysis as to whether there was a good business case for going ahead if the Government would allow the line to be sold off. That would be an excellent way of introducing some experimentation with privatisation on the rail network, perhaps along similar lines to what has been happening in Japan. Of course, I would also like to see private enterprise and private capital brought into Tilbury docks, which are in my constituency.
I shall mention the point of controversy to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred at the end of his speech—the name of the bridge. Thurrock is an area of great opportunity for development at the moment, both industrial and housing development. There is the land, there is a forward-looking and cooperative borough council, and it is clear that the area needs to be put on the map. It needs a flagship. With respect to the Government, it needs more than a service station on the M25 to take its name from the borough. It needs the bridge to be called the Thurrock bridge. The argument that people will not know where it is because it is called the Thurrock bridge is facile. Clearly, people will be looking at a map knowing that they need to get from Darlington to Dover, for example, and that they need to cross a bridge that will be marked on the map. They will be able to find their way. It will become a major flagship for an area of the country which in the past few years has suffered some degree of depression and is now fighting hard to come out of the depression and has great opportunity. If the crossing were called the Thurrock bridge, it would be a great aid to that. I must stress that there is very strong local feeling in my community that it should be called the Thurrock bridge.
I should like to reiterate something said by the Minister in his speech. There should be a quick and smooth passage for the Bill through both Houses. There is a particular reason for that. There is a need to start work on the bridge by early May 1988, due to divergence work on overhead power lines that needs to be done. That cannot be done in the peak periods for the Central Electricity Generating Board so it has to be done in the summer months. If the Bill is delayed, it could put off the commencement of construction by as much as a whole year. That would be frustrating to my constituents and to the millions of road users who want to obtain the benefit of an added facility on our road network. I am sure that hon. Members do not want to delay the date in any way because their own constituents get stuck going to the ports or may get stuck on their way to the Channel tunnel, if it is ever built. They do not want to delay the date to end the appalling queues in which their constituents are frying every summer. My constituents want the bridge, they want it quickly and they want it named after the borough of Thurrock.

Mr. John Cartwright: It is a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on an extremely competent and impressive


maiden speech. I think that we should also congratulate him on finding such a marvellous opportunity for a constituency maiden speech. Not many of us are given the opportunity of having an issue literally on the doorstep of our constituencies on which to address the House on the first occasion. I believe that all of us, however long we have been here, can recall the ordeal of our first speech in this place. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he survived that ordeal without any show of nervousness and was not one wit moved by the acres of empty Benches in front of him.
I am sure that the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's deft touch with his slightly barbed tribute to his predecessor. Perhaps we should be warned that, when he addresses the House on a more controversial occasion, he will exhibit that same sort of deft touch, but perhaps in a more controversial fashion. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman again when there are more hon. Members on both sides of the House to share that pleasure.
The Minister introduced the Bill with his usual lucid presentation. He referred, on a number of occasions, to the impressive speed with which the Bill had been brought forward. I would not dispute that for one minute. However, I am bound to say, as generously as I can, that speed in relation to the matter of the third crossing at Dartford is not something that can be associated with his Department.
There were many warnings by right hon. and hon. Members from all parties, warnings from motoring organisations and from all manner of people that every new complete section of the M25 would lead to a traffic build-up. They warned that the need for a third crossing at Dartford was evident and would grow. However, all those warnings were met with the same bland, dead-pan response from the Department of Transport. As recently as 12 November 1984 the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), then Minister of State, Department of Transport, blandly said:
The Dartford tunnel is the responsibility of Essex and Kent county councils but traffic flows are being monitored and the need for extra capacity will be reviewed as necessary."—[Official Report, 12 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 108.]
No sense of urgency there! No sense of acceptance of what was inevitably coming down the track.
In June 1985 the engineering study was announced, but, of course, before that got going the Secretary of State, in July 1985, devised the wonderful idea of involving the private sector. However, it was not until March 1986 that a formal invitation was issued to the private sector to take part. Even then there was no great burning sense of urgency on the part of the Ministers. For example, on 24 February 1986, the Minister of State said:
As to the bottleneck, I understand that congestion at Dartford is not likely to become serious before 1991–92."—[Official Report, 24 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 658.]
I do not know what the Minister considers serious congestion, but I would have thought that a 10-mile tailback is fairly serious congestion whatever criteria one uses.
The hon. Member for Thurrock has already referred to the report of the Dartford tunnel general manager. That report showed a massive increase in traffic in the past year—there was a 14·7 per cent. increase in traffic in the tunnel over that period. The M25 has produced a 100 per cent. increase in traffic through the tunnel in a four-year

period. The figures are staggering—the average daily throughput is 70,000 vehicles. It hits a summer peak of 90,000 per day. With the M25 complete, it is clear that that growth will not continue at the predicted rate. It has been forecast to grow at 3 per cent. a year, but, as the hon. Member for Thurrock has already reminded us, in the first quarter of this year the traffic increased by 9 per cent. That demonstrates the demand that exists.
The report of the general manager of Dartford tunnel contained a clear warning:
With a continuing increase in traffic volumes the delays will continue and indeed worsen until a third crossing opens.
It is against that background of urgent need that we must judge this Bill. I am sure that many motorists and motoring organisations feel that they are being blackmailed into accepting the continuation of the toll regime simply because we must have that extra crossing quickly.
It is not just the question of people occasionally using the tunnel as a convenience. A number of my constituents have to use the tunnel twice a day to get to and from work. They resent paying £1·20 a day—£6 a week—for the privilege of getting to and from work. It may be all right for others to be persuaded that the savings that the toll will provide will enable bypasses to be built elsewhere, but it is not an extraordinarily popular view when presented to my constituents who pay that money each week.
I always thought that it was absolutely illogical to have the whole, wonderful concept of the M25 as a major part of the trunk network, yet the only part that was not part of that network was under the river—the Dartford tunnel. I have always believed that that was a wildly illogical view. I am glad that, under this Bill, the tunnel and the bridge will become part of the trunk road network, subject of course to a system of private tolls.
On the question of private tolls, it must be remembered that substantial interest charges on borrowed money must be recovered through the toll regime. I understand that the construction costs of the bridge have been put at £86 million and the leasing cost of the tunnels at £45 million. I do not know what the interest charges will be on those sums, but I suspect that they will be fairly substantial and they must be regained through the imposition of tolls.
The hon. Member for Thurrock talked about unfair competition with the new bridge and that those who run the bridge would be extremely unhappy if people took their custom elsewhere. The concept of unfair competition concerning a river crossing is one that strikes me as rather different from unfair competition between supermarkets in a high street. However, there is the important point concerning diversion of traffic. There has been a good deal of evidence to suggest that tolling at Dartford has, in the past, encouraged some road users to transfer to the Woolwich ferry, which is absolutely free. The Minister has dealt with that because, since 1 April 1986, when he and Greenwich council took over responsibility of running that ferry, they have made such a God-awful mess of it that that ferry is no longer providing a reasonable, competent and dependable service. I am not sure that traffic will divert to the Woolwich ferry in such great numbers in future.
There is also the problem of the east London river crossing. That project has hung over my constituency like the sword of Damocles for the past 20 years. That crossing would cause massive destruction in my constituency. I


believe that if we have a third crossing at Dartford—an untolled crossing—the case for building the east London river crossing would be substantially undermined.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the name of this great new crossing of the Thames. I understand the parochial pride with which the hon. Member for Thurrock approached this matter, but, as somebody whose background is based on the south side of the river, I cannot for one minute understand the logic of having two Dartford tunnels and one Thurrock bridge. That seems to be the height of confusion. That new crossing will be part of the M25 motorway, and I believe that the less we confuse people the better. As the traffic crossing Thurrock bridge will be crossing from Thurrock to Dartford, I would have thought that the logical thing would be to call it the Dartford crossing and have done with it. The whole thing—bridge and tunnels—is known as the Dartford crossing and, for the removal of confusion, that should continue to be the case.
In conclusion, I can muster only two cheers for the Minister and for this Bill. Cheers, because at last we are going to get on and build this crossing which all of us have known we have needed for a long time. However, I have some regret that to get this crossing we must put up with the inefficient and archaic business of a toll crossing.

Mr. David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the proposed Dartford crossing and to support the Bill. I join the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on his excellent maiden speech. It was particularly gratifying to listen to a non-controversial but nevertheless effective maiden speech in the best traditions of the House. I am sure that all hon. Members look forward to hearing from him in future, even though I think that he, unfortunately, represents the wrong side of the Thames.
The present totally inadequate tunnel crossing of the river Thames at Dartford, which is located in the constituency of my neighbour and good friend the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), is only two miles to the east of my constituency boundary. Therefore, the proposals in the Bill will have positive and potentially far-reaching consequences for my constituents.
My constituency forms the north part of the London borough of Bexley and is located along the Thames. Traditionally, the area has been one of the industrial areas of the borough and has been able to attract investment, jobs and factories. Recognising the potential of the area, the borough established an economic development unit to encourage and to help business to relocate in Bexley. The economic unit has had considerable success to date. With many green field sites and established industrial units available, many business men have been looking favourably at the possibility of relocation. With the local skilled work force and with low rates—all important considerations for industry and business—business men
look favourably on the area.
However, despite Erith and Crayford being only 12 miles from London and only five miles from the southern motorway network of the M2, the M20 and M25, it is totally inadequately served by river crossings. Good connections with Channel ports are all very well and essential and, thanks to the improving road network, communications with towns in the south are attractive and

useful to business and commerce. But, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Woolwich, the failure to be able to travel easily across the Thames to the north, to Essex and beyond, quickly, easily and uninterruptedly is a disincentive to people in business and industry coming into our area. That disadvantage has been growing for many years. One can look at the map and see the routes across the Thames. There are, we admit, several crossing points. apart from the Dartford one. Undoubtedly, there is the Woolwich ferry to which the hon. Member for Woolwich has already alluded. It is one of the more attractive ways of crossing the river, but it is also one of the least efficient and effective for a business man for whom time is at a premium.
We are promised the east London river crossing. I take a different view from that of the hon. Member for Woolwich. We need it, and we need it soon. At the moment, its development seems to be stalled and delayed, and meanwhile traffic problems continue to grow.
The Blackwall tunnel is further along the Thames. It is heavily over-used, and in peak periods has regularly been congested and sometimes subject to closure. It is worth remembering that the original Blackwall tunnel was a Victorian development, and the bends in it prove that point.
Of course, we could go to the City and travel along the bridges, but no one, for environmental or many other reasons, would wish to take that route. For my constituents, local business, motorists and general transporation, we have to look for improvements in the crossing of the river at Dartford as the only way in the near future to improve our communications system in that part of London. The building of the new crossing at Dartford—I must take the view that it is known as Dartford, and it should continue to be known as the crossing at Dartford, so I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on this point—is to be welcomed. It will not only end the congestion that has caused many problems and improve traffic flow on the effective and worthwhile M25 and connecting motorways, but help to keep heavy traffic away from built-up areas in my constituency and those of other hon. Members. Therefore, for my constituents, the construction of the new bridge will have the wider impact of encouraging new firms to relocate in the area.
Nationally, considerable job opportunities will stem from such a major construction. They must be welcomed by all concerned. The fact that we are to have a new bridge rather than another tunnel is also good news. The project will not only help to maintain the United Kingdom's large span bridge capability, but will take only two and a half years to build. That means that there will be a relatively short time before the bridge is in operation. That will benefit us all and is welcomed.
The present operation of the Dartford tunnel is not satisfactory, as we have heard from other hon. Members. I have never been in favour of tolls on estuarial crossings that are maintained by public authorities. I have raised with the Government the matter of tolls on the Dartford tunnel and elsewhere on previous occasions. Yet this matter is quite different. We need a new river crossing, the cost of which, as we have already heard, is quite astronomic. It needs to be built now. Therefore, the Government are to becongratulated on their approach to the venture. On behalf of our constituents — the taxpayers—we must applaud and be grateful for the decision to allow private financing to construct the bridge.
The leasing of the two tunnels and the new bridge for a maximum of 20 years, with Dartford River Crossing Ltd. financing the cost of operating the tunnels and repaying the outstanding debt on them, is an imaginative solution to a difficult problem. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, the situation will continue until the DRC has recovered its costs. I accept that the costs will have to be recovered through tolls.
I am pleased that we shall not see an escalation of tolls during the period when the DRC runs the complex and that the only increase will be in line with inflation. I still consider that tolls will slow down traffic flow, as the hon. Member for Woolwich said, despite attempts to encourage motorists to have the right change ready. Being against tolls in general, although they are justified in this case, I welcome the fact that in 14 or 15 years the Department of Transport will take over the management of the tunnels and bridge, and the crossing of the river Thames at Dartford will become toll-free. Of course, with the building of the bridge, there will need to be an improvement of approach roads. I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to do this in the near future. I hope that there will not be too much disruption. As my hon. Friend knows, south London has suffered only too much disruption because of recent roadworks and improvements. They cause motorists a great deal of frustration and delay and do not allow them to drive to the maximum of their capabilities.
My only concern is a minor one, but none the less one that I must voice. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me on the matter. We have heard of other bridges in other parts of the country; for example, the Severn bridge. Weather conditions affect the availability of the bridge for use by motorists and businessmen. Standing on the Erith waterfront in summer, watching the river boats and so forth, is a most pleasant experience. Yet in winter it is not such a pleasant experience, with north-east winds blowing hard and the frequency of snow and ice. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister—I am sure that he and his officials have done so—to consider the design of the bridge and consider how bad weather and high winds will affect traffic on it. We must make sure that the bridge is usable 'throughout the worst of the winter weather. I hope that my hon. Friend will allay the anxieties of some of my constituents who have raised that important point.
I welcome the Bill and the future opportunities that it offers to my constituents and travellers on the M25. My constituents will be delighted to have a new crossing at Dartford. The bridge is long overdue. The sooner it is built, the better.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I rise with some trepidation partly because this is the first time that I have addressed the House, but also because transport is not a subject on which I am a specialist. I do so because this is a most important subject for the people of Gravesham whom I represent.
I come here following Mr. Tim Brinton, who ably and meticulously represented the constituency of Gravesham for eight years. As I have borne witness over many years, he was meticulous in the way that he handled his constituents' problems, without publicity and with due attention to giving the assistance that they expect from

Members of Parliament. He was also meticulous in his devotion to the great passion of his life — the broadcasting industry and the media. It was no accident that, during his time in the House, he became chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench media committee, and all hon. Members who were here in previous Parliaments will remember the devotion to the cause that he showed.
I shall make an unusual departure by paying tribute to Mr. Speaker, for it was as a student resident in his constituency that I first became aware of politics. It was Mr. Speaker who, as my Member of Parliament, fostered my ambitions to serve in this place. Mr. Speaker has set, for us all to see, a high standard of service to his constituents in Croydon, North-East, and it was that high standard that, for me, set an example for the way in which I hope to serve my constituency.
The borough of Gravesham has longstanding river traditions. In its population centre of Gravesend, it is the point at which the River Thames meets the sea. and the people Gravesend have had a long tradition of supplying watermen to the River Thames, and sea and river pilots to the great port of London. At the moment the sea and river pilots feel aggrieved at measures passed in the House concerning their activities.
Since the 14th century, Gravesend has been the landing place for people on voyages from all parts of the world into the River Thames. For example, King Edward VII knew Gravesend well. As Prince of Wales, he spent many days waiting there for the wind to be in the right direction to bring his fair Princess of Denmark to him, and their many years of happy marriage.
For many years, the borough had the inspiration and service of "Chinese" Gordon, who was instrumental in reconstructing the fort at Gravesend. We also have a poignant piece of history because it was in the borough of Gravesend that the great Indian princess, Pocahontas, died of a broken heart, awaiting her captain.
Gravesham borough consists not only of Gravesend. It stretches far to the east of Gravesend, to the historic parish of Higham, the home of Charles Dickens, and to the rural parishes of Shorn, Cobham and Luddesdon, which are some of the most beautiful parishes in the lovely county of Kent. We have a famous parish in Meopham, and many hon. Members have told me of their expeditions to Gravesham to play cricket on the famous green there. It has the unusual honour of having the longest village street in England, at seven miles long. It has an interesting distinction inasmuch as its parish council is the only one to meet in a working windmill. Whether that has an influence on its decisions, I shall shortly be finding out.
The Cinderella of the borough is Northfleet, which was its powerhouse for many years, with heavy industry all along the water front. Northfleet, with its old urban district council, is reminiscent of many northern cities, and during the great recession at the beginning of this decade, like many other cities, it was badly damaged by the effects of the recession on heavy industry. We saw 6,000 people unemployed.
It was a recognition of that hardship that brought the Conservative Government to grant to the borough of Gravesham two enterprise zones. The first, which is now fully in operation at Springhead, has brought success and hundreds of jobs. This success is due to a winning formula invented by this Conservative Government in the enterprise zone concept, used by the Conservative borough council, which carried out a co-ordinating role of


considerable achievement, and helped by the flexibility of the people of Northfleet and local areas in the way that they approached their work.
Perhaps the most important factor to remember is the excellent communications provided to those enterprise zones by the A2 and the M25. They are the reason why we in Gravesham consider the Dartford-Thurrock crossing to be so important. My constituents know the misery of the traffic jams to which other hon. Members have referred, and which are particularly acute at peak hours. Those who drive up to London to the sound of Radio Kent remember only too bitterly how often it speaks of miles of queues. Those queues will get worse before this measure relieves them.
Last year alone, the traffic crossing the Thames at this point increased by 14 per cent. Projections show a 3 per cent. per annum increase in the coming years, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) so ably pointed out, already in the first three months of the financial year, the volume is running 9 per cent. above the traffic rate seen last year. This process of congestion will, we fear, stunt the recovery of Gravesham, which is now dependent on light industry and commerce.
In the old days, we would have depended on the national and county programmes for highway construction and we all know what happened to £86 million projects in such situations—they are squeezed into the future. That is why I commend this proposal to the House. It is the product of considerable imagination by the Government. The taxpayers and the ratepayers will have to shoulder neither the cost of either project nor the risk of escalating costs. The Government have not left the road user unprotected either. I note that they have written into the Bill the safeguard of linking toll increases with the increase in inflation.
What I like about the Bill is that it releases the Government and the county road funds for other highway construction projects like the Thameside industrial route, which is so vital for job generation in north-west Kent.
Two aspects of the Bill need attention. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), I believe that the construction of the bridge should take account of the need for adequate wind shielding. The four lanes of highway will be in the prevailing wind. That would cause closures to traffic that would cause immense congestion on the M25, so I ask the Minister to give some attention to that matter. I also ask for close attention to be given to the uprating of ventilation in the older, western tunnel under the Thames at Dartford. That tunnel will be used for northbound heavy vehicles, which will create problems of visibility and noxious fumes.
I do not want to become involved in the local controversy over the name of this crossing. We in Gravesham know exactly what it is: the Gravesham upriver bridge. In our part of Kent it will be known with great fondness, as we drive across it, as the gulf. I support the Bill.

Mr. James Couchman: It gives me enormous pleasure to applaud my Kentish colleague's maiden speech. We are not neighbours, but we miss by only a few miles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the

Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on his speech. He is welcome in the House and we look forward to hearing more from him in support of these Kentish projects.
I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) who joins us in a seat that we have not held, as he said, since 1945. Although he verged on the contentious in his maiden speech, with all that business about the Thurrock crossing — we in Kent know exactly what it should be called—we shall forgive him that. I look forward to having him as a nearby hon. Friend on the other side of the river.
I shall also take the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) in vain this evening. He cannot answer back and that is a good thing. I know that he would wish to be associated with many of the comments that have been made here tonight. His constituency is as intimately concerned with this project as that of my hon. Friend the Member Thurrock. They have a joint interest in the project, but it is an interest that spreads much wider.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said in his opening remarks, there is a long history to the Dartford tunnel, and I remember it from the time when the first tube—the west tunnel—opened in 1963. After a year's interim teaching, my first job was to work as a representative for Regent Oil company, and my first training in my first few weeks in December 1964 was helping tanker drivers deliver petrol from Canvey island into Kent. I well remember the enormous relief it was to them to have the use of this new tunnel, which saved them many miles going upstream arid back downstream with their loads. It came as an enormous relief to many people. One must remember that the nearest crossings of the Thames were the Woolwich ferry, which has been mentioned, and the Blackwall and Rotherhithe tunnels. The first bridge crossing was Tower bridge; so it was a huge journey to go from Essex to Kent in those days.
It was no surprise that the tunnel was quickly congested. So many drivers used it, and there was the constriction from having to take hazardous loads through under escort in convoy, as still happens. The second tunnel, opened in 1980, brought considerable relief, but by the time that the sections of the M25 north and south of the Thames had opened it had already become obvious to most of us that the two narrow dual carriageway tunnels would be inadequte as the link between the M25 on the Essex side and the M25 on the Kent side. It was obvious to all except the Department of Transport, for, as recently as 1983, when the tunnels were heavily congested, it was still claimed by Ministers, speaking from the Dispatch Box, that the arrangements at Dartford would be adequate as part of the M25 link. I note that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) remembers those assertions. It was really a sort of conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus that finally brought the realisation that there would have to be more lanes across the river at Dartford.
The present bores give rise to considerable concern. They are enormously heavily used, and I know that the joint committee is worried about ventilation on the west tunnel. A good deal of upgrading has been done during the past two years because the bores have become extremely shabby, and one was beginning to worry about their state. However, whatever one does to upgrade the present bores, the link will still be inadequate, consisting as it does of two narrow two-lane carriageways that are constricted both by the toll points and the need for the escorted crossings of lorries. I am told that there is also concern about the


adequacy of access for firemen from one tube to the other in the event of a major fire. I hope that all of those aspects will be examined during the general consideration of the building of the new link by my hon. Friend and his Department. This is one of the busiest short stretches of road anywhere in Britain.
The new toll booths and the improved southern approach opened last year have helped in the taking of money, but the bottom line is still a small link between two high-speed three-lane carriageways on either side of the Thames. It is typical of our road planning, and especially of the planning of the enormously busy trunk routes in Kent, that we have this inadequate link.
The Dartford tunnel is part of the main route from the Kent ports to the north and should have the eight lanes that are suggested in this proposal. It is on that that my interest in this proposal hangs, because running through my constituency is a small part of the inadequate M2 motorway. It leads to the Dartford tunnels. I look forward to the upgrading of the M2 that will come with the prospect of the Channel fixed link. I also look forward to the upgrading of the A20-M20 and the M25 that will also happen with the prospect of the Channel link. All those roads are at present heavily used and congested.
In the autumn of 1985 I was invited to talk to representatives of the firm of John Mowlem. They put forward a most imaginative scheme for providing a third tube, which is what we were talking about at that time, and for taking over the extant debt from the joint committee in return for a time-limited toll regime. That seemed to be a most imaginative scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said that it was a most innovative scheme. It was a most novel scheme for the provision of an important new link. I watched that scheme grow. When it was put out to tender by the then Secretary of State for Transport I was delighted to see that it attracted so much interest from the construction industry. It showed how much interest the industry had in this sort of scheme. It was the sort of infrastructure development that many hon. Members in all parts of the House had been calling for during my short time in the House.
I congratulate Dartford River Crossing Ltd. on its success in being awarded the contract for the bridge scheme. I hope that when the bridge is constructed careful consideration will be given to the matter of high winds. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) spoke about that. It would be catastrophic if this bridge were not constructed in a way that virtually guaranteed its use for traffic on every day of the year. We cannot have that bridge closed, as the Severn bridge is closed, when there are high winds. I know that is one of the things that exercises the mind of Kent county council.
As a Kent Member, I welcome the proposal to build this new crossing over the Thames. Perhaps it will be the beginning of a new era which will see the upgrading of the A2–M2, the A20–M20 and the building of the missing link. I find it quite extraordinary that my hon. Friend's Department should have chosen to upgrade those two roads at more or less the same point in Kent at the same time. There must be more cones spread down the A20–M20 and the A2–M2 than on any other road in England. Moving from west to east and from east to west in Kent is a very grim prospect.
In part, our underbuilding of the motorway network has been due to our reluctance to accept a toll road system. If we had followed the example of our friends in France and constructed an autoroute system or a motorway system with a toll regime, we would have many more roads than we have now. We should not shrink from using toll income to fund the new Dartford-Thurrock link. I hope that this represents a new era and that we shall see other schemes to build these immensely important links, bypasses and crossings. I welcome the fact that private capital will allow my hon. Friend to continue with many urgent and much needed schemes.
I would be selling my constituency short if I did not put in a short plug for the northern relief road for the Medway towns and the third Medway crossing. That scheme is almost as big, in money terms, as the scheme that we are discussing. With the prospect of the Channel fixed link and the fact that the M2 is bound to be busy, the Medway towns will need that crossing. My hon. Friend must pay attention to other roads that are heavily congested in Kent; he must not focus purely on the Dartford link.
I shall support the Bill during its passage through the House with unequivocal relish, and I welcome it being given a Second Reading tonight.

Mr. Roger Moate: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) in congratulating our new Kent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), on an eloquent and forceful maiden speech. While Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham made use of an ingenious device by paying the warmest possible tribute to you for the guidance and inspiration that you had given him in your constituency. If ever there was an ingenious ploy for ensuring that one caught Mr. Speaker's eye in future, that was it. Without that ingenuity, I am sure that we will listen to many eloquent and able speeches from him. We wish him every success and happiness in the House and we are sure that he will continue the traditions that were set by his predecessor, Mr. Tim Brinton, to whom he paid a warm tribute.
I welcome the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) about the possibility of the principle contained in the Bill being applied to great effect to many other matters, particularly British Rail, the docks at Tilbury and so on. It is that point which makes the Bill so exciting.
It is remarkable that a Bill which contains such an important principle has been received and accepted unanimously by everybody who has spoken. I welcome the generous comments by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who paid tribute to the ingenuity of the scheme and to those who have engineered the project so far, particularly the previous Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore). It bodes well if the House can approach projects that harness private capital to major public sector projects in such a manner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, if we can do that by using public sector finance and tolls, we will progress and build many of the great projects that we so desperately need.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North rightly asked what that would do to each Department's borrowing requirement and to the external limits that are imposed.


I share with him a desire to see commercial activities in the public sector being allowed to utilise private sector finance. We had such an example many years ago when British Rail was allowed to lease much of its equipment and thereby extend its activities in a way that it could not otherwise do.
However, particularly with regard to this bridge, we must apply the proper disciplines of the private sector to these developments, which is precisely what this project does.
This is one of the most exciting projects and Bills that the House has had to consider for a long time. Thinking back, probably inaccurately, it was Sir Thomas Brassey, that great engineer and builder, who conceived the idea of an orbital road around London. It never happened, but it has happened now. In many ways that is an exciting development. We now have a £1 billion orbital road—the M25 — completed around London. That is a remarkable project. We are now combining with it this new bridge, which I believe will be one of the engineering projects of which this country can be proud in years to come.
It really is exciting that in a relatively short time—a shortness of time made possible by the ingenious nature of this project and by private finance—we shall see one of the greatest bridges in England straddling the Thames. If I may be excused a pun, and as it is a road bridge that will straddle this waterway, perhaps we can call it our "Colossus of Roads".
The Bill conceives a magnificent engineering bridge, and it will be built in the most ingenious way. I do not know who originally thought up the scheme, or who packaged it in such a way that it would work, but whoever it was deserves a great tribute, because it achieves so many things. First, we shall have a bridge in record time. Secondly, it will remove from the county councils the debt burden and administration of this tunnel, something that they have never relished, but have carried out with immense efficiency. Thirdly, for the first time it brings in private capital, without which the bridge would not have been built.
As for tolls, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). We should not be frightened of the principle of tolls. Many hon. Members and other people travel on the continent and readily pay—perhaps not with pleasure—substantial tolls for the privilege of travelling very much faster on the autoroutes and autobahns of Europe in order to get to their destinations much more quickly. Given the way in which our roads have developed, I am not saying that the introduction of tolls would be easy, but if they can be used to finance projects and to get them built more quickly, we should not hesitate to use them.
The motoring organisations, understandably, do not like the idea of tolls, but this particular project demonstrates the sheer value of them. Were it not for the fact that it is to be financed by tolls, and given the competition for funds from all Departments, there is no way in which this bridge could be built in the way that is now planned.

Mr. Janman: Does not my hon. Friend also accept that the benefit of having more tolls in the United Kingdom is that we would gain income from visitors to this country who use our roads, whereas currently they make no contribution at all?

Mr. Moate: That is a strong point. It would be even more welcome if applied to the foreign lorries that cause such anxiety. If it were thought that they too were contributing, that would make it even more popular.
Some people may subscribe to the theory of the bottomless pit, whereby any desirable project can be funded quickly. That is a popular notion but it is nonsense, for we know that 101 desirable projects are all competing for funds. No matter how necessary the third crossing is, there would have been little prospect of it getting as far ahead in the queue under those circumstances. In other words, tolls in this case have made it possible to have a bridge in our lifetime, and that demonstrates their value. We should therefore follow the logic of that, and wherever it can be done sensibly without causing much controversy, the Government should look at the possibility of using the toll principle and private sector finance in this way.
I wholeheartedly welcome this proposed legislation and look forward with immense pleasure to the construction of this exciting venture. Above all, our constituents look forward to the ending of the queues that have now built up largely because of the sheer success of the M25, which have escalated even faster than the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) suggested.
I congratulate those Ministers, Trafalgar House, the county council and all the others who have contributed to this great project. I end by suggesting an alternative name, because I shall not become involved in the DartfordThurrock controversy. It is a great bridge, so why not call it by a name that means a great deal to the British people? As it will be the first great bridge that people will see when they come up the Thames, why not call it the Trafalgar bridge, to solve the dispute between Dartford and Thurrock?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, will treasure the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) who said that he first took an interest in politics because of the way in which you served your constituency. He was one of your constituents, and he said that he would wish to follow your example in his work. In years to come, perhaps he will go on to follow you in the Chair and when he stands for election he may find that he does even better without the party label than he did before.
My hon. Friend follows Tim Brinton and if his voice becomes as famous as that of Tim Brinton, he will be heard in the House with pleasure and by the country with interest. His speech showed that his constituents can bank on his international experience. If he continues to provide thoughts such as the idea of politicians sitting inside windmills, no doubt with the hot air driving the sails round, he may find that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy can make use of him. We look forward to his progress in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) made a remarkably competent speech. I think that it would be welcomed in his constituency because of the fair way in which he described the work of Thurrock council. As he said, it is not a Conservative council yet, but it is forward-looking in many ways. He went on to talk in detail about the ways in which further improvements and investment in transport facilities would be of great advantage. In a few words I cannot do justice to the whole of his speech, but he made the significant point that private


capital has a part to play—not necessarily an exclusive role, but a sensible role. He also talked of the need for a quick passage for the Bill to provide the extra crossing facilities as soon as possible.
With the exception of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate holds a seat that 20 years ago was held by the Labour party.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Never mind the width, feel the quality.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman says, "Never mind the width, feel the quality." In the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in 1984, "Newport Hughes" spoke. We have now heard "Aberdeen Hughes" and I believe that "Harrow Hughes" is here as well. Perhaps the tradition will continue if there are further schemes requiring legislation such as this.
Arthur Bottomley, now Lord Bottomley, was invited by an engaging voice on the other end of the telephone to open the Conservative party garden fete in Thurrock. He explained that he was very fond of Thurrock but that he did not think that he was quite the right person to open a Conservative party garden fete. He was then told that the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—took a keen interest in those who opened Conservative garden fetes. Arthur Bottomley explained that he was a Labour Privy Councillor and that perhaps I might be able to do it instead. By doing that, he turned down the chance of running the last five miles of a marathon that was being held to raise funds for the Conservative party. I am delighted that all the investment that I put in on that occasion, as I watched the marathon runners coming by me, has been rewarded by the election of a Conservative Member. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to represent his constituency for many years to come.
The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham that the crossing should be called the Trafalgar bridge is likely to have crossed the minds of the Trafalgar group. The suggestion that it should be called the Thurrock bridge represents a marvellous campaign, which I expect Thurrock to continue at least up to the naming of the bridge and possibly beyond it if, as is likely, it is not called the Thurrock bridge. However, the campaign represents a chance to put Thurrock on the map as a place which people want to develop and where they want to build. The area south of the Thames will want to promote itself in the same way. I have no objection to the continuing campaign, although I would object if people thought it was the most important aspect of the bridge or that Thurrock had squatters' rights to the name of the bridge because it had been first to think of running a campaign. If Thurrock was too persistent, I had thought of calling it the Bottomley bridge, but a voice behind me suggested that it should be named after the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) — the tunnel could then be called Under Dunn and the bridge Dunn Over. I do not claim authorship of that, merely the courage to repeat it.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North sensibly did not give way to all the ideology of Conservative Members in relation to private funding, but he gave a generous welcome to the way in which the project has been put

forward. The arguments against tolling were put forward in detail in the debate in February 1984 and I am glad that they have not been rehearsed at length today. I appreciate the points that were made in that context by interested parties both within and outside the House.
It could also be argued that charging is no bad thing. With the exception of the Woolwich free ferry, people using ferry services—for instance, to the Isle of Wight or to France — are used to paying charges for the journey. There is no special difference between a ferry service and a bridge or a tunnel, although there may be arguments about the most efficient way to raise revenue. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North invited us to consider the possibility of toll roads and we shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not invite the Minister to consider it. I asked him to state the Government's policy on it.

Mr. Bottomley: Our policy is non-dogmatic. I think that that is the best way to put it. Even if the hon. Gentleman did not mean to propose it, it is a sensible suggestion and I shall do my best to consider it.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, the general point about additionality is welcomed. One cannot expect any Treasury automatically to assume additionality, whatever ingenious scheme may be cooked up by the private sector or a Department of state. I should point out, however, that the GLC offering extra money to British Rail, as one public authority offering to add to the funds of another, could not be regarded as additionality in any way. Partnership may be useful, but if money is taken out of one taxpayer's pocket and passed across to another, there is no reason to regard it in a different way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham is right to say that we should do what is feasible and sensible rather than insisting that it can be done only by the private sector or only by the public sector. If we are looking for ways to expand commercial activities in the public sector by using private finance, in general the best way to do that is to privatise and to put the activity into the private sector. There are sometimes difficulties, however, because the one thing that the private sector dislikes is risk. In negotiations with the private sector it is worth recalling that the private sector always wants the public sector to take the risk and it is up to Ministers and their advisers to find the best way to ensure that the private sector accepts risk.
Where the private sector usually gains is that it tends to react to possible cost overruns faster than the public sector and its mistakes tend to be more rapidly self-correcting. We certainly hope that the private sector and DRC will get the bridge built faster than we could have done. I hope that we are years away from the cost overruns of the Isle of Grain power station and other major construction projects, but if the private sector wishes to participate it must be persuaded to accept as much risk as possible so that we can achieve a regime of self-interest without selfishness on the part of contractors and operators in relation to projects of this kind.
With regard to other ideas from the private sector, we are open to ideas from wherever they come and we reserve the right to respond to some private sector initiatives. For example, reference was made to the second Severn crossing. When the private sector offers us a location for the second Severn crossing in a place that does not meet


our proposals, it must expect us to say so in a straightforward way. Obviously, we were open to persuasion, but we wanted English Stones for the second Severn crossing. When we reach the stage of deciding whether to use private funding, we intend to have competition as well. Putting projects in the private sector and having competition between different contractors tend to have significant advantages.
My neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Woolwich, and others referred to the east London river crossing. As hon. Members know, I have a constituency interest in that, so I am not able to go even as far as I did in the February 1984 debate. A public inquiry into a toll-free crossing was conducted, and I cannot go any further than that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made me remember that road users pay for car parks and parking meters. There is no significant difference between paying for moving along a road and paying for the privilege of stopping on a road. I recognise, however, that those in the involuntary queues at Dartford and Thurrock prefer not to be charged; indeed they prefer not to be involved in the queues at all.
Tributes have been paid to the ingenuity and innovation of the approach. Credit should be shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) for the responsibility they took. I pay tribute, too, to the officials of the Department of Transport. Perhaps it is best to do that now, before we are 15 years down the line and see whether tolls are lifted, as we expect. In their work until now, those officials have come forward with a major achievement in co-operation with the private sector—the hankers, lawyers, and so on. This shows the type of innovation which can be found and which the public service has been as good at providing as the private sector. Long may we continue looking for the same benefits to the public of high-quality service by the Civil Service as well as by those who are generally regarded, in theory, as being more enterprising. I say that as the son and brother of civil servants.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I referred to British Rail using private capital which might be added to the external financing limit. I want to make it clear that I do not mind if it is an addition, but the project should be carried out in partnership and certainly should not be used as an exercise in the creeping privatisation of British Rail. There would be nothing worse for the morale and service provided by British Rail than if little bits of BR's services were hived off to private enterprise on the ground that it was an innovative use of private sector capital.

Mr. Bottomley: I thought that we had been getting on so well! The hon. Gentleman has put that point on the record, and perhaps we can leave it there.
I was about to refer to the early warnings about the need for extra crossing capacity. I have quickly looked through the February 1984 debate and I am not sure from the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich that there was a reference to the need for extra capacity.

Mr. John Cartwright: The demand was made well before then.

Mr. Bottomley: In that case, I take it back. One of the major problems faced by the Department of Transport has

been the shortage of money. The greatest shortage occurred between 1975 and 1979 when, I vaguely recall, the hon. Member for Woolwich was in some way involved in Government.

Mr. Cartwright: I was not involved in Government.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman was PPS to the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, on the unpaid side of the payroll. One of the biggest difficulties was the halving in real terms of new money for new national roads. It has taken the Government six or seven years to catch up with the backlog. For those involved in the construction industry, it is better to go for the slow and gradual improvement in actual sums of money rather than for great leaps and bounds in provisions, which might suddenly be cut because the IMF has come in, or because other things have gone wrong. No one can guarantee that we shall always be able to preserve that slow growth, but it is better to try to have realistic assumptions about the sums of money available and, when one can go sensibly for additionality, to do so.

Mr. Cartwright: The Minister has made a fair point about the absence and shortage of money. However, with great respect, that was not the case that the Department of Transport made about the additional crossing at Dartford. It did not say, "Yes, we accept the case for a third crossing, but we are terribly sorry we do not have the money.- Instead, it said that it did not think that there was a case for a third crossing, and that is where I find it culpable.

Mr. Bottomley: That may be right. However, I suspect that the reasons are probably mixed.
The hon. Gentleman has referred also to the Woolwich free ferry. It is not my job to get involved with the agents who manage the ferry for us at the moment. However, it crossed my mind that if the hon. Gentleman was so good at doing that perhaps we should not have seen the result that we did in the Woolwich election and perhaps we should have had the most recent ex-leader of the Greenwich council here and the ex-ex-leader back there running the ferry better. However, I must confess to partisanship. Although I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here and that his Labour opponent is not, obviously, it would have been nice if the hon. Member for Woolwich had been a Conservative. However, given the choice and the way in which Greenwich council has been run recently, the ex-leader of that council should be left with his arduous repsonsibilities as mayor and perhaps he will help to tidy up some of the decisions that have been taken by the London borough of Greenwich in the past few years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) rightly referred to the need to improve the road network, as well as making a common point of agreement about extra capacity across the Thames. This bridge between Thurrock and Dartford is the only noncontroversial crossing of the Thames that has been put forward in history. Waterloo, Chelsea, and Battersea bridges and the other crossings were fought against for years by people with proper, but some with improper, interests to defend, or who had unnecessary fears. I am glad to have reached the stage of achieving common recognition that extra capacity is needed and I am sure that the Bill's future passage through the House will be


aided by the all-party approach that recognises the need for that extra capacity, although there are one or two points on which people will want reassurances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford also made the point, in words better than mine, about the need to keep heavy traffic on appropriate roads rather than allow it to drift off on to unsuitable roads. Through roads for through traffic must be the key to the road transport side of transportation. Indeed, I hope that that will spread further and wider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), together with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, referred to wind protection, to the safety of the bridge in all weather conditions and to ventilation in the tunnels. Obviously, the road surface of this bridge will be treated in the same way as the surfaces of the motorway network.
On the point about windshielding, there is a misconception about the Severn bridge. That bridge is rarely closed, although there are times when high-sided vehicles must be kept off and, of course, it was closed for a time earlier this year. However, that was when both men of Kent and Kentish men had some of their road systems taken out of action for a week or more. One should not have expectations above those for roads on land, for a road that is in the sky and part of a bridge.
There is little experience of putting windshielding on high bridges. It is clear that the conditions between Dartford and Thurrock are substantially easier than those at the Severn. However, there is insufficient experience to be able to state precisely the type of windshielding that would work. From a proper investigation it is clear that some speed and lane restrictions may be necessary for about 24 hours per year. If that is the expectation, it is about the same as that for a cross-country motorway. To argue strongly for windshielding when the tests that would be needed to reduce the possibility, or even the probability, of the need to have restrictions on lanes or on high-sided vehicles for about only 24 hours per year takes our knowledge further than it is at present. It would also increase the investment that would be needed. Indeed, it would be rather like paying the police for more than the burglar is likely to steal. I think that is the simplest way of putting it. We believe that it might be necessary to close the bridge to high-sided vehicles for about six hours a year, and contingency arrangements will be made to deal with that. That reasoning led us to believe that the provision of windshielding on the bridge and approach viaducts would not be justified, but the matter can be discussed during the later stages of the Bill.
It is accepted that there may be a problem with ventilation. A study is taking place. It will be possible to improve the ventilation if that proves to be necessary. We are aware of the problem, and we shall obtain information which should lead us further forward.
I think that I have dealt with most of the issues that have been raised. I am grateful to those hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The House will be doing its duty if it gives the Bill further consideration at its later stages and gets it through as early as possible so that construction can begin, we can relieve the capacity problems of the crossing between Dartford and Thurrock and the bridge, whatever it is called, can come into use as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 20th July, and
(b) any petition which has being presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,
being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
That is no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
That three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Durant.]

DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the extingishment of liabilities of Kent and Essex County Councils in respect of the principal of, and interest on, sums borrowed from the Secretary of State in respect of tunnel expenditure: and
(b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act and of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided.—[Mr. Durant.]

DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the levying of tolls by the Secretary of State in respect of vehicles using either of the tunnels or the bridge;
(b) the imposition of charges in respect of the use of the crossing by vehicles exceeding such dimensions or weight as may be prescribed and in respect of the removal or the repair, adjustment or refuelling of vehicles at rest in any prescribed part of the crossing or of the approach roads; and
(c) the payment in to the Consolidated Fund of sums received or treated as received by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Mr. Durant.]

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. William Cash, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. David Knox, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Bowen Wells be members of the Select Committee on European Legislation.—[Mr. David Hunt]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. D. N.Campbell-Savours, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Ian Gow, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Michael Morris, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Allan Rogers, Sir Michael Shaw, Mr. Robert Sheldon and Mr. Michael Shersby be members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That the Lords message of 7th July be now considered.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Willaim Cash, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. David Martin be members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Ordered,
That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — Waldens Farm, St. Mary Cray

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In 1974, I drew the attention of the House to the problems caused for my constituents by a firm, Vemera Ltd., of Loughton, Essex, which bought a local farm on the fringe of the green belt, divided its 75 acres into 800 plots measuring 100ft by 30ft and then sold them individually as leisure blocks at a big profit. No planning permission for development being possible and boundary fences being prohibited, most of the new owners were unable to benefit from their land as they wished to. Some erected buildings of sorts, some cultivated their plots in a commendable way, but most of the land was abandoned to become like a rural slum. The local authority racked its brains to find a remedy. It enforced the planning law where it could, but on the whole, faced with hundreds of absentee landlords and purported tenants, few of whom put in an appearance on the site, enforcement was impossible, and 75 acres of prime agricultural land became a wilderness.
When I raised the problem in the House—it was coupled with problems caused by similar actions by the same company, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) — I was told that central Government could do very little. I hope that I will not get a similar response this evening.
About 25 acres of the land are covered by an orchard, which has been divided among 120 owners. During the night of 1 and 2 November last year, a convoy of over 50 vehicles with over 100 people — men, women and children of all ages and conditions — arrived and occupied the orchard. A family in a battered old bus had driven into the orchard a few days before, but otherwise the residents and the local authority were taken by surprise. The occupation was concerted among the so-called hippies and travellers who had previously been in the west country because many of the newcomers were armed with maps with Waldens Farm, St. Mary Cray, marked on them.
Since November 1986, more vehicles and people have arrived to join the others. There have been many comings and goings, but in round figures about 80 vehicles and about 200 people have been the peak occupation of the orchard. There has recently been some exodus, presumably because of the attraction of the summer solstice at Stonehenge.
The people concerned shun contact with local residents and are actively hostile to strangers they find on the site. The conditions in which they live are disgusting. They have access to the public water supply, as the main stopcock is on the farm. They have dug holes in the ground to meet their sanitary needs, they have stripped large areas of the orchard and have taken any timber they could find round about for firewood. Dogs and other animals roam freely. Most local people are afraid to venture into the area, but health visitors and midwives—heroines as always—do. Three children have been born there recently, the mothers refusing to go into hospital.
It appears that they all live on supplementary benefit, collected from one of the three local DHSS offices. Drug trafficking is almost certainly going on and there have


been acts of violence against local residents. Property left out in neighbouring fields has been stolen and there have been a few ugly incidents involving packs of dogs. The people who own the plots covered by the orchard, insofar as they are aware of the situation, are powerless to do anything about it. Many of them appear to be Greek and residents of different parts of north London. They are willing to co-operate in legal action to remove the trespassers, but not if this involves expense.
The law-abiding, peaceful, ratepaying, taxpaying, hardworking citizens of St. Mary Cray are up in arms about this plunder, devastation and menace in their midst. They demand to know why the council, the police and the Government will not protect them from the consequences of this illegal occupation of private land by people who obviously have not the slightest intention of respecting the rights of others.
Bromley council—the local authority—prevaricates. The environmental health officers say that there is no present threat to public health while there is running water, earth closets and fires burning the rubbish. However, they do not live nearby and experience the daily stench. Other officers of the local authority say that it would be impossible to identify anyone on the site long enough to bring summons for breaches of the byelaws. The police say that they have the orchard under constant surveillance, that criminal law is being enforced and that, to their credit, they have tracked down the legal owners of the property concerned with a view to providing laborious evidence for possible civil proceedings for trespass.
However, they seem reluctant, probably because of the hesitation at Scotland Yard or, more probably still, at the Home Office, to take action under the new Public Order Act 1986. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, will action be taken under that Act to evict those people and, if not, why not? The Act should surely be used against the intruders who have come on to the site since the Act came into effect, if not against all the malefactors. What happens if the trespassers, following civil proceedings taken by the outraged owners of the sites, move on to another local site?
My constituents are very angry about the inactivity of the authorities concerned in dealing with this appalling state of affairs. The local residents cannot be expected to endure the strain of this continual squalid nuisance and to meet the expense of what might be long-drawn-out legal action to evict the trespassers. Bromley council is stymied. Even the remedy of a compulsory purchase order, which one might have thought would be a good solution to the problem, is unlikely to be effective for years. What are the Government going to do about it?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have great sympathy with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). He is quite right to bring the position of his constituents to the attention of the House at this time. I do not think that anybody could have put the position more clearly than he has.
The problem stems essentially from the fact that on this plot of land there is multiple ownership. Because of that, it is more difficult than would otherwise have been the case to invoke the usual remedies. It might be helpful if I tell

the House what the usual remedies are in cases such as this. There are two. The first is to invoke the ordinary civil law under the cause of action of trespass. The second would be to seek to persuade the police to exercise the powers conferred upon them under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.
It might be helpful if I were to explain the circumstances in which each of the two remedies can be invoked. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington is a distinguished lawyer and, therefore, as familiar as I am — perhaps rather more so—with the legal technicalities. However, I am sure that he will forgive me if, for the convenience of of the House, I identify those characteristics.
What is trespass, I ask rhetorically? Essentially, trespass in unlawful occupation of another person's land without the authority or consent of the person entitled to possession. When a person trespasses on land, the person entitled to possession can go to the court for a remedy. The remedy is an injunction, a claim for damages, or both. However—this is the important point—the person who has the cause of action is the person entitled to possession. If many people are entitled to possession and some of those people cannot be identified, there is a problem in bringing the cause of action. The cause of action is complete, but one has the difficulty of identifying the correct plaintiffs. If the owners are not interested in bringing proceedings, clearly they will not be brought. That is one of the usual remedies and I have mentioned the difficulty about invoking it in this instance.
The other remedy, provided by Parliament at the instance of this Government, is under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. It might be helpful if I reminded hon. Members of the nature of the remedy provided under section 39, which states:
If the senior police officer reasonably believes that two or more persons have entered land as trespassers and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and—

(a) that any of those persons has caused damage to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or
(b) that those persons have between them brought twelve or more vehicles on to the land,
he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land."
If the persons on the land unlawfully decline to leave, the offence is complete. However, we come back to the problem of multiple ownership. The police officer can ask the persons trespassing to leave only when he is satisfied
that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier".
Once more we are faced with the problem of multiple ownership where there are many owners of land, some of whom are not identified, and some of whom may not care very much whether or not there is a trespass.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Has the Minister taken into account the considerable effect of intimidation on landlords and owners of land? Although the Minister has given the House a full picture of the remedies open to those in single ownership — therefore, there are no complications for the owner—has he taken full account of the effect of intimidation of owners of land by persons who may not subsequently be identified? Has he also taken account of the effect on the police force of the said


intimidation? That is especially relevant in my constituency. It is not enough to send one officer to talk to these people. The police may evict such persons, but they will come back. They can then cause wilful and malicious damage not only to property, but also to persons. Has he taken full account of that and are there adequate remedies in law?

Mr. Hogg: I have no doubt that if the actions of the trespassers were intimidatory, it would constitute an offence. It might constitute an offence under the Public Order Act. However, there are a variety of other offences, contained both in common law and in other statutes, which might be committed. That is not the problem; the problem is whether or not the aggrieved persons can get such people off the land.
Such action does not depend upon intimidation; it depends upon establishing a right that can be enforced either by the police or through the courts. I have identified the two remedies—the action in trespass and the powers to remove under section 39 of the Public Order Act—to highlight the problems in this instance. To use those remedies it is necessary to identify the owners of the land and to obtain their concurrence to the necessary action upon which everything else depends.
I believe that the situation may be more promising than my hon. Friends believe. My understanding is that there is one owner of the land who owns a great majority of the land affected at Waldens farm. I understand that that person has instructed a solicitor to take proceedings in the High Court. I am further told that that person has secured the consent of the great majority of the other owners of the land who have now been identified. The majority landowner is thus able to go to the High Court on behalf of himself and of the great majority of the other landowners.
If that is correct, I believe that the cause of action is complete. Clearly it would be wrong for the House or, indeed, a Minister, especially a junior Minister, to prejudge in any way the likely decision of the court. However, on those facts it would seem to me that there is a good prospect of a High Court judge making the injunction that my hon. Friend has in mind. Therefore, ordinary civil remedies may now apply in this case because the majority landowner has the consent of the other occupants.
A different situation will obviously arise if the High Court declines to make an order of the kind that we have been discussing. The question that then arises is whether the police would be entitled to act under section 39 of the Public Order Act.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Hogg: The decision whether to invoke the powers under section 39 of the 1986 Act is a matter for the police. Again, it would be wrong for a Minister of the Crown to seek in any way to influence the police officers' decision because it is an operational matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington will appreciate as much as I do that Ministers have no jurisdiction in that respect.
Let us assume that the High Court declines to make an order in a civil action. Provided that the owners, by some collective action, can make it plain to trespassers that they, the trespassers, should leave—they can do that either individually or collectively——

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is making a face. It can be done by a solicitor, an association—they can set up an association — or it can be done in a variety of other ways. The owners must make it plain to the trespassers that the trespassers must leave. Provided that the police are satisfied that the other criteria set out in section 39 are fulfilled, they may decide to invoke the powers provided in section 39.

Miss Widdecombe: As my hon. Friend has said, although there is a remedy by giving notice to itinerants and having it effected by the police, the fact remains that serving the original is up to individuals. Whether it is an individual landowner — in my constituency, we are talking about individuals, not multiple ownership—or his or her solicitor, the fact remains that it is an individual against 30 itinerant occupants., who are not necessarily at that point under the observation of law-keeping bodies such as the police. They must face such people and serve the original notice before the forces of law and order are brought in. Has my hon. Friend taken on board the effects of intimidation? What remedy does a single landowner have against itinerants?

Mr. Hogg: I have contemplated the difficulties that can arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone must look at it from the point of view that it is obviously a necessary condition to the powers under section 39 of the Act that the landowner wishes the trespasser to leave. After all, some landowners might not care much one way or the other.

Miss Widdecombe: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I shall finish my comments in this respect: and then I shall give way.
Some landowners might be content to let trespassers remain on the site. Therefore, it is right in principle and in practice that the powers under section 39, which constitute a criminal offence, should arise only in circumstances in which a landowner wishes a trespasser to leave. That is a necessary precondition.
The next question is this: what obligations are imposed upon a landowner to make apparent to the trespasser the requirement to leave? The answer to that is that it varies in accordance with the facts. There is no need to serve a formal notice. If one does not want to talk to such fellows in the field, one can get a bull horn, put it to one's mouth and say, "Get off my land." That is quite sufficient to require people to leave. For example, there is no need to go up to Mr. Speaker, shake his hand and say, "Mr. Speaker, I want you out of here." It is quite sufficient to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Mr. Speaker, I want you to leave." The communication of the notice depends upon the facts. If my hon. Friend's constituents arc alarmed about this, I suggest a bull horn, and I am not being frivolous.

Mr. Stanbrook: Let me bring the debate back to the issue in my constituency and point out the difficulties of proceeding by way of civil action. We are talking about one third of Waldens farm—25 acres out of 75—which is occupied in this way. Some 120 landowners are concerned, and by dint of great effort and great expenditure by the local people, including, as my hon. Friend has said, one in particular, there will be a civil


action in the High Court to get rid of these people. What happens if the people concerned then move on to the other 50 acres where there are another 600 or 700 owners? Who will ask every one of them to finance a court action? The practical difficulties of civil actions are such that they are quite beyond private individuals to take action and we should not expect that of them. It should be a matter for the Home Office and enforcement of the Public Order Act.

Mr. Hogg: It is not a matter for the Home Office in any circumstances. One must go either through the civil courts, which is not a matter for the Home Office, or through the police, which is not a matter for the Home Office. The Home Office is not directly involved.
My hon. Friend is making a serious point. He is asking why we should use the civil remedy of an injunction. There is an advantage in using an injunction, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, which is that the injunction is permanent in character as it applies to the relevant piece of land, whereas the relief under section 39 is not permanent in character. My hon. Friend is asking what happens if either in civil proceedings the injunction is made, or under section 39 an order is made, and the trespassers leave the piece of land affected either by the order or the injunction and go elsewhere.
That is a fair point, and I am afraid that the position will then be as it now is. Once again, the two remedies will have to be invoked. This is inevitable for this reason. It would be wrong in principle to give anyone the power to move people from private land unless it were obvious and clear that the owners of the land on which the people were squatting, if that is the appropriate word, wanted them to leave.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington may say, "Of course the landowners want the hippies to leave." However, we cannot be certain of that. The law cannot presume that. The powers under section 39, or the relief

available in a civil suit, must always depend upon the determination and desire of the landowners in question to assert their rights. That is an essential difficulty that flows necessarily from our respect for property.
I have tried to consider whether there might be any way around this by taking indirect action. I have considered the Orpington Urban District Council Act and I suggest that my hon. Friend considers that as well. Bromley borough council has some powers under that Act that might be valuable in this instance. However, one again encounters the problem of the would-be trespassers moving from one site to another. I have also considered whether there is a breach of planning regulations and whether enforcement notices could be taken. The best advice that I have had is that that would not be a useful way forward. The same is true of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which I have also considered.
Two remedies are available—one is the civil suit for an injunction and damages, and that is going forward. If that fails it may be—that is a matter for them—that the police will decide that they are in a position to invoke section 39.
No one could put the case more clearly than my hon. Friend has done, and he has been extremely ably supported by our hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. I have not had the privilege of hearing her speak in the Chamber before, and I welcome her to it. Perhaps the civil suit will provide a remedy; I very much hope that it will.

Mr. Stanbrook: A very unsatisfactory remedy.

Mr. Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but he must also bear in mind that we have a system of law that depends on proprietorial rights and not the exercise of coercive powers in respect of private property, unless it is clear that the owners of that private property want those coercive powers to be exercised. Personally, I believe that that is what the law should be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Ten o'clock.